Liss v. Lenovo United States Inc

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JOSHUA TAYLOR and GIAUNIE CASE NO. 3:25-cv-5840-JNW 8 HENDRIX, ORDER 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 LENOVO UNITED STATES INC., 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiffs1 filed this putative class action in Thurston County Superior Court 14 on August 20, 2025. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendant Lenovo United States Inc. (“Lenovo”) 15 removed the action to this Court on September 19, 2025, asserting federal 16 jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Dkt. No. 1. On 17 January 9, 2026, Plaintiffs Joshua Taylor and Giaunie Hendrix filed a consolidated 18 amended class action complaint (“Amended Complaint”), alleging Lenovo violated 19 Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) and Consumer Protection 20 Act (“CPA”). Dkt. No. 26. Plaintiffs claim that Lenovo sends “commercial emails to 21 22 1 Plaintiff Stephen Liss has been terminated from this action. The Court will update 23 the case name to Taylor et al. v. Lenovo United States Inc. 1 Washington residents on its mailing list” with subject lines announcing that sales 2 are ending soon or that there are deep discounts to be had. Id. Neither is true, 3 Plaintiffs allege: the sales do not end when the emails say they will, and Lenovo 4 discounts its products so often that the sale price is the regular price. Id. Lenovo 5 moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to state a valid CEMA claim, that 6 CEMA violates the dormant Commerce Clause, that the Controlling the Assault of 7 Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM”) preempts CEMA, 8 that the CPA claim falls with the CEMA claim, and that actual and treble damages 9 are unavailable. Dkt. No. 27. 10 1.1 The Court grants the Stipulated Motion to Intervene. 11 The parties filed a stipulated motion to allow the State of Washington to 12 intervene for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of CEMA. Dkt. 13 No. 32. The State then filed a “Statement of Readiness to File a Response to 14 Lenovo’s Motion to Dismiss,” attaching its response as an exhibit rather than filing 15 it, because the Court had not yet ruled on intervention. Dkt. Nos. 33, 33-1. In its 16 subsequent reply, Dkt. No. 34, Lenovo addresses both Plaintiffs’ response, Dkt. No. 17 30, and the State’s response, Dkt. No. 33-1. 18 Thus, the Court GRANTS the stipulated motion to intervene. Dkt. No. 32. 19 The State may intervene, and Lenovo’s consolidated reply, Dkt. No. 34, is accepted 20 as timely and within the stipulated limit of 6,800 words. The Court also DEEMS the 21 State’s response, Dkt. No. 33-1, filed as of this order. Because Lenovo has already 22 23 1 replied to it, the Court does not order further briefing on the issue of CEMA’s 2 constitutionality. 3 1.2 The Court requires supplemental briefing. 4 As to the arguments raised in Lenovo’s motion to dismiss, courts in this 5 District have uniformly rejected similar arguments raised by defendants in motions 6 to dismiss other CEMA/CPA actions. See, e.g., Ma v. Nike, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 3d 7 1227, 1229 (W.D. Wash. 2026); Harrington v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 3d 8 1218, 1220 (W.D. Wash. 2025), reconsideration denied, 2026 WL 125134 (W.D. 9 Wash. Jan. 16, 2026); Agnew v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, No. 2:25-CV-02006- 10 JHC, 2026 WL 764140, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2026); Jerde v. BYLT LLC, No. 11 2:25-cv-01496-JHC, 2026 WL 415445, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026); Kempf v. 12 Fullbeauty Brands Ops., LLC, No. C25-1141 TSZ, 2026 WL 395677, at *4–7 (W.D. 13 Wash. Feb. 12, 2026). 14 On the other hand, some courts in this District have questioned whether 15 named plaintiffs in similar CEMA/CPA class actions lack Article III standing and 16 whether the amount in controversy satisfies the minimum for diversity or CAFA 17 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Devivo v. Sheex Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05807-DGE, 2026 WL 775625 18 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2026); Nuri v. True Religion Apparel, No. 2:25-cv-00690-LK, 19 2026 WL 864886 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2026); Hutton v. Papa John’s USA, No. C25- 20 1922-KKE, 2026 WL 1183241, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2026). 21 The Hutton court has since remanded that action for lack of standing. 2026 22 WL 2210133 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2026). Other courts have found standing 23 1 adequately pleaded. See, e.g., Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05861-DGE, 2 2026 WL 1392327, at *2–3 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026). And the Harrington and 3 Kempf courts stayed the action pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal in 4 Montes v. SPARC Group, LLC, Case No. 23-25496. Other courts found Montes 5 distinguishable and declined to stay. See Arcand v. Catalyst Brands LLC, No. 2:25- 6 cv-01445-DGE, 2026 WL 369417, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2026). 7 Lenovo touches on standing only under CEMA, arguing Plaintiffs cannot sue 8 over emails they did not receive. Dkt. No. 27 at 12–13. The State invokes Article III 9 only in passing, citing Harbers v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 415 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1008 10 (W.D. Wash. 2019), to argue that CEMA claims resemble traditional torts and so 11 escape preemption. Dkt. No. 33-1 at 29. But no party squarely addresses whether 12 Plaintiffs have Article III standing here, and none addresses the amount in 13 controversy. The Court raises both on its own, as it must before reaching the merits, 14 and will not decide these questions without the parties’ input, so it ORDERS as 15 follows: 16 • Lenovo must file a supplemental brief not to exceed eight (8) pages by 17 August 27, 2026, about (1) whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing 18 and, if not, whether the action should be remanded to state court or 19 stayed pending Montes, and (2) whether the Court should, under CEMA, 20 calculate damages on a per-email or per-recipient basis and, depending on 21 that answer, whether the amount in controversy satisfies the minimum 22 for diversity or CAFA jurisdiction. 23 1 e Plaintiffs must file a responsive supplemental brief not to exceed eight (8) 92 pages by September 3, 2026. The State of Washington may (but is not 3 required to) file a responsive supplemental brief not to exceed eight (8) 4 pages by September 3, 2026. 5 e The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-note the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 27, for 6 September 3, 2026. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to update the case name 7 to Taylor et al. v. Lenovo United States Inc. 8 9 Dated this 13th day of August, 2026. 11 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23