Anwar v. Etsy Inc ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 FATEN ANWAR, CASE NO. 22-CV-01255-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 12 v. COMPLAINT 13 ETSY INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 On November 21, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff Faten Anwar to show cause why her 17 amended complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 34 at 18 1–2. Ms. Anwar timely responded to the Court’s order. Dkt. No. 35. She maintains that the amount 19 in controversy is met for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.1 Specifically, Ms. Anwar argues that 20 “the right to operate her business free from wrongful interference by [Etsy] . . . well exceeds the 21 amount of punitive damages [she] is asking for especially considering the vast art collection that 22 1 Ms. Anwar does not appear to seriously contest the Court’s lack of federal question jurisdiction. She briefly argues 23 that Etsy engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45. Dkt. No. 35 at 7–9. As the Court previously explained, however, Section 45 of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not create a private right 24 of action. Dkt. No. 34 at 3. 1 [she] owns and sells[.]” Id. at 4; see also id. at 7 (“In this case, the object of litigation is Plaintiff’s 2 business and its being both threatened and hampered by the deceptive and unfair business practices 3 of [Etsy.]”). Ms. Anwar otherwise suggests that punitive damages are warranted here because 4 Etsy’s conduct evinces “intentional wrongdoing.” See Dkt. No. 35 at 10. 5 But framing the issues in this case in such general terms elides the precise nature of the 6 nonmonetary remedies Ms. Anwar seeks in her amended complaint: an order (1) enjoining Etsy 7 from conducting any activities in her account; (2) directing Etsy to close her account if it is still 8 open; and (3) directing Etsy to provide her with “a monthly list of gross Washington State Sales 9 and tax . . . for each and every month [her] account remained open[.]” Dkt. No. 30 at 4. Ms. Anwar 10 again fails to articulate how that relief, although important to her, can be objectively quantified at 11 a value exceeding $75,000. See Dkt. No. 34 at 5. Nor does she plausibly allege that Etsy’s 12 interference with her business, even if true, amounts to more than $75,000 in damage. And 13 although Ms. Anwar’s complaint seeks $100,000 in punitive damages under Section 82.08.0531 14 of the Revised Code of Washington, id. at 4, that statute does not provide for punitive damages. 15 See generally Wash. Rev. Code. § 82.08; Dailey v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 919 P.2d 589, 590 16 (Wash. 1996) (en banc) (the Washington State Supreme Court follows a “long-standing rule 17 prohibiting punitive damages without express legislative authorization”). 18 The Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Ms. Anwar has failed to establish that the 19 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Dkt. No. 34 at 3–5. The Court accordingly DISMISSES 20 Ms. Anwar’s amended complaint without prejudice. 21 Dated this 9th day of December, 2022. 22 A 23 Lauren King United States District Judge 24