"To establish a CPA violation, the plaintiff must prove five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice that (2) occurs in trade or commerce, (3) impacts the public interest, (4) and causes injury to the plaintiff in her business or property, and (5) the injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act." Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 602, 200 P.3d 695 (2009). We liberally construe the CPA.
We review a motion for summary judgment de novo. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009).
The entrepreneurial aspect of a learned professional's conduct relates to the occurring in trade or commerce prong. See Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 602-03, 200 P. 3d 695 (2009). Washington courts have recognized that CPA claims may differ from an underlying medical malpractice action if the conduct complained of relates to entrepreneurial activities.
(Id. ¶¶ 571-73.) As these allegations exemplify, the fashion in which Boeing has allegedly harmed Zunum is far from “exactly the same” as the fashion in which Zunum alleges Boeing's misconduct has or could harm the general public. See Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 200 P.3d 695, 700 (2009); see also A.H. Lundberg, 2016 WL 9226998, at *7-8.
Where a dispute is "essentially private," "it may be more difficult to show that the public has an interest in the subject matter. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wash. 2d 595, 605 (2009) ( quoting Hangman Ridge, 105 Wash. 2d at 791). "Ordinarily, a breach of a private contract affecting no one but the parties to the contract is not an act or practice affecting the public interst."
To prevail in a CPA action, the plaintiff must establish five elements: "(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice that (2) occurs in trade or commerce, (3) impacts the public interest, (4) and causes injury to the plaintiff in her business or property, and (5) the injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act." Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 602, 200 P.3d 695 (2009); Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 792-93, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). A CPA claim fails if a plaintiff fails to establish all five elements.
We reverse summary judgment dismissal and reinstate the plaintiff's claim under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW. ¶ 2 We review summary judgment de novo. Michael v. Mosquera–Lacy, 165 Wash.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
NPDG and Homax dispute whether the allegations in the complaint establish the public interest element. The purpose of the CPA is to " 'protect the public'" Michael v. Mosguera-Lacv, 165 Wn.2d 595, 604, 200 P.3d 695 (2009) (quoting RCW 19.86.920). The public interest element of a CPA claim requires a finding that the allegations show that Homax's unfair or deception act injured the public interest.
” Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 605, 200 P.3d 695 (2009) (citing Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.2d 331, 544 P.2d 88 (1976)). “For private disputes, ‘it may be more difficult to show that the public has an interest in the subject matter.'”
The court considers four factors to assess the public interest element when a complaint involves a private dispute: (1) whether the defendant committed the alleged acts in the course of its business, (2) whether the defendant advertised to the public in general, (3) whether the defendant actively solicited this particular plaintiff, and (4) whether the plaintiff and defendant have unequal bargaining positions. Michael v.Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595,605, 200 P.3d 695 (2009). In another decision, the Supreme Court restated the factors and added a fifth: