Nelson v. PSC Inc

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR [6] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MATTHEW and MELANIE NELSON, CASE NO. C22-0712-JCC [10] Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 P.S.C., INC., 13 Defendant. [14] 15 Plaintiffs bring claims based on Defendant’s alleged violations of the Fair Debt 16 Collection Practices Act, Washington’s Collection Agency Act, and Washington’s Consumer 17 Protection Act. (See generally Dkt. No. 1-3.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for 18 partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 10). In briefing the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion, the parties 19 debate the import of Washington’s “marital bankruptcy” provisions. (Compare Dkt. Nos. 10 at 20 5–6, 16 at 3–5; with Dkt. No. 13 at 3–9.) The statute at issue provides, in part, that “no separate 21 debt . . . may be the basis of a claim against the earnings . . . of either spouse . . . unless the same 22 is reduced to judgment within three years of the marriage . . . .” RCW 26.16.200 (emphasis 23 added). 24 How best to interpret the term “within,” as contained in the statute, is critical to resolving 25 this matter. Plaintiffs argue the term should be defined in an absolute sense, i.e., a period 26 commencing three years before marriage and terminating three years after marriage. (See Dkt. 1 Nos. 10 at 5–6, 16 at 3–5.) Defendant argues the term should be defined in a normative sense, as 2 in no longer than three years following the marriage. (Dkt. No. 13 at 6.) This is a matter of 3 statutory interpretation not yet clearly addressed by a Washington court. The Court, therefore, 4 FINDS it appropriate to certify the issue to the Washington Supreme Court. See RCW 2.60.020; 5 see also Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 902 F.2d 1400 , 1402 n.1 (9th Cir. 1990) 6 (sua sponte certifying a question of state law). 7 Specifically, the following questions are certified: 8 1. What is the meaning of the term “within” as contained in RCW 26.16.200? 9 2. If a spouse’s antenuptial debt is reduced to judgment more than three years prior to 10 marriage, does Washington law bar garnishment of that spouse’s marital wages in 11 satisfaction of that judgment? If not, may the entirety of that spouse’s marital wages 12 be garnished, if necessary to satisfy the judgment, or may something less than the 13 entirety be garnished (and what are the limitations)? 14 The Court does not intend its framing of these questions to restrict the Washington Supreme 15 Court’s consideration of any issues it determines relevant—it may reformulate the questions as it 16 sees fit. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs. Inc., 556 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2009). 17 The Clerk is DIRECTED to submit to the Washington Supreme Court a certified copy of 18 this order; a copy of the docket in the above-captioned matter; and Docket Numbers 1-3, 10, 12, 19 13, and 16. The record so compiled contains all matters in this case material for consideration of 20 the questions certified for answer. Defendant is ORDERED to file the opening brief on the 21 certified questions. See Wash. R. App. P. 16.16(e)(1). 22 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 10) is STAYED until the 23 Washington Supreme Court answers the certified questions or affirmatively declines to do so. All 24 remaining case management dates are STRICKEN. The parties are ORDERED, within fourteen 25 days of the Washington State Supreme Court’s answer, or communication declining to provide 26 an answer, to meet and confer and provide this Court with a Joint Status Report. 1 DATED this 7th day of November 2022. A [4] John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE