375 P.3d 636
Wash.2016Background
- Washington AG sued >20 foreign electronics manufacturers (May 1, 2012) alleging CRT price‑fixing from 1995–2007 in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86.030, seeking injunctive relief, restitution, damages and penalties.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing CPA’s four‑year statute of limitations (RCW 19.86.120) bars the claims; trial court denied and certified questions for review.
- The Court of Appeals held RCW 19.86.120 applies only to private damages actions under RCW 19.86.090 and that RCW 4.16.160 (nullum tempus) exempts state actions, affirming the trial court.
- Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) the four‑year CPA limitations period applies to AG’s parens patriae suit under RCW 19.86.080, and (2) RCW 4.16.160 exempts the AG’s .080 claims from general time bars.
- The Supreme Court held RCW 19.86.120 does not apply to .080 claims and that RCW 4.16.160 prevents statutes of limitations from running against the State for suits brought in the name of/for the benefit of the State, so the AG’s .080 injunctive/restitution claims are not time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 19.86.120’s 4‑year limit applies to AG’s parens patriae claims under RCW 19.86.080 | .120 applies only to .090 private damages; .080 is separate and not time‑barred by .120 | .120 should reach .080 because claims arise from same conduct and parallel federal law imposes a 4‑year limit | Held: .120 applies only to .090; it does not bar AG’s .080 claims (statutory text and legislative history) |
| Whether RCW 4.16.160 (nullum tempus) exempts the AG’s .080 action from general statutes of limitation | The AG acts in name/for benefit of the State under .080; nullum tempus codified in RCW 4.16.160 prevents limitations running against the State | The AG’s parens patriae suit vindicates private interests (on behalf of residents) and is a conduit reviving private, time‑barred claims; thus RCW 4.16.160 should not apply | Held: RCW 4.16.160 applies; AG’s .080 injunctive and restitution claims (brought in name/for benefit of State) are exempt from general limitations in absence of express contrary statute |
| Whether federal antitrust limitations or federal parens patriae precedents control construction of CPA limits | The CPA should be interpreted in light of federal antitrust law only where language aligns; here WA statute differs | Federal parallel (Clayton Act) imposes a 4‑year rule for state parens patriae treble damages actions, which should guide interpretation | Held: Federal statutes/precedents are not controlling because CPA’s text and structure diverge; statutory text governs |
| Whether parens patriae restitution claims are qualitatively the same as private .090 damages claims for limitations purposes | AG’s .080 restitution is different in author, purpose, and remedies from private .090 damages claims | The overlap means treating them differently is anomalous; apply same limitations | Held: Qualitative statutory differences (and express legislative choices) mean .080 and .090 are treated differently for limitations purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Lehman, 153 Wn.2d 416 (statutory and CR 12(b)(6) review de novo)
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (statutory interpretation review standard)
- Eastwood v. Cascade Broadcasting Co., 106 Wn.2d 466 (limitations treatment when two torts overlap)
- Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405 v. Brazier Constr. Co., 103 Wn.2d 111 (nullum tempus / statutes of limitations do not run against the State)
- State v. Vinther, 176 Wash. 391 (State as mere formal plaintiff exception to nullum tempus)
- Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Ralph Williams’ N.W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 81 Wn.2d 740 (AG acts to protect the public under CPA)