Anthony Stalker v. Continental Service Plan Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted Continental Service Plan Inc.’s motion to dismiss Anthony Stalker’s Second Amended Complaint. The court held that Stalker plausibly alleged neither injury and causation under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act nor the inequitable-retention element of unjust enrichment. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court also granted an attorney’s motion for admission pro hac vice.

Holdings

1. Allegations of informational injury alone, without a tangible deprivation of something more, do not satisfy the Washington Consumer Protection Act's injury-to-business-or-property requirement.
2. A CPA plaintiff must plausibly allege that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's unfair or deceptive act; conclusory allegations that failure to initial disclosures caused harm are insufficient.
3. An unjust enrichment claim fails where the plaintiff does not allege that the defendant retained a benefit inequitably, including where the plaintiff does not allege that the defendant was unable or unwilling to perform the contractual obligations.
4. Further leave to amend is unwarranted when the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend and the amended pleading still fails to plausibly state a claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged injury to business or property and causation under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged the elements of unjust enrichment.
3. Whether Plaintiff should receive another opportunity to amend after the court had previously granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed