Maidhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 POINTSTORY LLC, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-1691-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 PROTALUS USA LLC, 12 Defendant. [13] 14 At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on 15 Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). In Washington, a plaintiff who is a 16 party to a valid express contract is bound by the provisions of that contract and may not bring a 17 claim for unjust enrichment for issues arising under the contract’s subject matter. See Chandler 18 v. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth., 17 Wash.2d 591, 604 (1943); see also Hurlbut v. Crines, 14 Wash. 19 App. 2d 660, 672-73 (2020). Defendant contends that all work performed was under a 20 contractual agreement, and Plaintiff did not perform any work outside of this contract. Plaintiff 21 acknowledges that an unjust enrichment claim is not applicable when damages arise solely from 22 a contractual breach and admits that all damages sought are based on contractual invoices. [23] 1 Consequently, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s unjust 2 enrichment claim with prejudice. 3 Dated this 15th day of May, 2025. [4] A 5 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge