United States v. 2013-03-19 | 11-36082 | Alliance Shippers, Inc. V. Always Transport, Inc. |…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., ) No. 11-36082
a New Jersey corporation, )
) D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03126-RMP
Plaintiff – Appellant, )
) MEMORANDUM*
v. )
)
ALWAYS TRANSPORT, INC., )
a Washington corporation, )
)
Defendant – Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Alliance Shippers, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its request for an
award of attorney’s fees and treble damages against Always Transport, Inc. We
FILED
MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

See Hudson v. Condon, 6 P.3d 615, 621 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).1
See Boules v. Gull Indus., Inc., 134 P.3d 1195, 1197 (Wash. Ct. App.2
2006); Tradewell Grp., Inc. v. Mavis, 857 P.2d 1053, 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
2
affirm.
(1) Contract. The district court granted judgment against Always based
upon its determination that Always had improperly withheld (converted) a trailer
that Alliance owned. Alliance asserts that the district court erred when it denied
Alliance attorney’s fees, despite the presence of an attorney’s fee provision in a
contract between Alliance and Always. We disagree. Attorney’s fees are not
generally available in Washington, and, while they can be provided for1
contractually, whether they can be awarded in any particular case depends upon the
scope of the contract provision and whether the action in question is actually based
upon that contract. The provision in this case covers “property, cargo, or2
commodities” being shipped, not the trailer. More than that, the conversion claim
could be (and was) determined without reference to the contract itself, and the
causal connection between the contract and the conversion was not sufficient under
Washington law – mere “but for” causation will not do. See Hemenway v. Miller,
807 P.2d 863, 873 (Wash. 1991); Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795, 805
(Wash. Ct. App. 2009); Burns v. McClinton, 143 P.3d 630, 641 (Wash. Ct. App.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
2006).
(2) Replevin. Next, Alliance asserts that the district court should have
awarded it attorney’s fees under Washington’s recovery of personal property laws.
See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 7.64.020, 7.64.035. Again, we disagree. As the district
court pointed out, the attorney’s fee provision in question does not provide for fees
in every action for possession; they are provided for those actions where the
defendant raises no triable issue of fact regarding possession or damages at or
before an order to show cause hearing. See id. § 7.64.035(3); see also Puget Sound
Nat’l Bank v. Honeywell, Inc., 698 P.2d 584, 588 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). Here, it
is plain that issues of fact regarding damages were raised, that a trial was required
and that one ensued.
(3) Consumer Protection. Finally, Alliance argues that the district court
erred when it failed to award attorney’s fees (and treble damages) pursuant to the
Washington Consumer Protection Act. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.020,
19.86.090. We disagree. Here, although the district court determined that there
was an actionable misrepresentation on Always’ website, Alliance well knew that
Always was acting as a broker, and it chose to deal with Always anyway. On this
record, we cannot say that those factual findings were clearly erroneous. See
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entm’t Distrib., 429 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
2005). As a result, Alliance did not show that the misrepresentation caused it any
loss. See Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 170 P.3d
10, 22 (Wash. 2007); see also Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d
129, 137 (Wash. 2011) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --