Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy

102 Citing cases

  1. Dalien v. Jackson

    161 Wn. App. 1013 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    "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.

  2. Farrell v. Friends of Jimmy

    No. 53373-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2020)

    We review a motion for summary judgment de novo. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009).

  3. Young v. Savidge

    155 Wn. App. 806 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 15 times
    Applying statute of limitations from RCW 4.16.080 to claims for misrepresentation

    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.

  4. Zunum Aero, Inc. v. The Boeing Co.

    No. C21-0896JLR (W.D. Wash. Jun. 13, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    (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.

  5. Loops, LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc.

    CASE NO. C08-1064 RSM (W.D. Wash. Jul. 30, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    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."

  6. Timmerman v. S. Sound Outreach Servs.

    8 Wn. App. 2d 1020 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)

    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.

  7. Williams v. Lifestyle Lift Holdings, Inc.

    175 Wn. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Williams v. Lifestyle Lift Holdings, Inc., 175 Wn. App. 62, 302 P.3d 523 (2013), the Washington Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's CPA claim against a surgery promoter were separate from any personal injury claims because the CPA claim focused on the promoter's misrepresentations which convinced him to receive the surgery.

    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.

  8. Nw. Prod. Design Grp., LLC v. Homax Prods., Inc.

    No. 67278-9-I (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  9. Subspace Omega, LLC v. Amazon Web Servs.

    2:23-cv-01772-TL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2024)

    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.'”

  10. Tilley v. Edelweiss Maint. Comm'n

    No. 39875-7-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2024)

    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: