Steven Kozol, Larry Ballesteros, Keith Blair, Keith Craig v. Jpay, Inc., 76796-8

Background

Four inmates (Kozol, Ballesteros, Craig, Blair) at Stafford Creek sued JPay after their JP3 MP3 players malfunctioned following a 2015 software update intended for JP4 devices.
JPay acknowledged compatibility issues, offered free hardware upgrades and refurbished units, and stopped producing JP3s; music libraries (accounts) were unaffected.
Plaintiffs asserted claims including Consumer Protection Act (CPA) violations, conversion, trespass to chattels, and sought declaratory relief and discovery; the trial court granted JPay summary judgment and denied a CR 56(f) continuance, motion to compel, and reconsideration.
The trial court relied in part on a declaration by JPay compliance officer Shari Katz describing the scope/cause of malfunctions and JPay's remedial measures.
Plaintiffs appealed, contesting admissibility/adequacy of Katz’s declaration, existence of genuine issues of material fact on CPA/conversion/trespass, discovery refusals, denial of a declaratory judgment, and denial of reconsideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Katz declaration	Katz lacked personal knowledge and statements were conclusory	Katz declared under penalty of perjury and provided facts within her role	Court admitted declaration — plaintiff failed to show lack of personal knowledge or inadmissibility
CPA claim (unfair/deceptive acts)	JPay intentionally caused malfunctions, misrepresented repair/replace options, violated RCW 19.190.030(2)	Malfunctions resulted from incompatibility of update; JPay offered free repairs/upgrades and did not act unfairly or deceptively	Summary judgment for JPay — no genuine issue that JPay acted unfairly or deceptively
Conversion / Trespass to chattels	JPay willfully interfered with and dispossessed inmates of JP3s (locking/unlocking)	No evidence of willful, intentional interference; any interference was inadvertent and remedied	Summary judgment for JPay — record lacks evidence of willful intentional interference
Discovery / CR 56(f) continuance / motion to compel	Plaintiffs needed additional, JPay-held technical evidence (commands, code) and depositions to create issues of fact	Requests were overbroad, sought privileged/trade-secret material, plaintiffs offered no good reason for delay	Court did not abuse discretion denying continuance and motion to compel — requests were overbroad, sought trade secrets, and plaintiffs failed to show diligence
Declaratory judgment (pricing comparability to iTunes)	Contract language created present dispute over song price comparability; sought return of excess music purchases	Alleged price disparity speculative; no actual, present controversy shown	Denial affirmed — plaintiffs lacked UDJA standing because dispute was hypothetical
Motion for reconsideration (new evidence)	Plaintiffs submitted post-judgment declarations and documents they claimed were unavailable earlier	Evidence was not shown to be newly unavailable or material to claims	Denial affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show evidence was newly discovered or material

Key Cases Cited

Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658 (de novo review for summary judgment rulings)
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (elements to prove CPA claim)
Mellon v. Regional Tr. Servs. Corp., 182 Wn. App. 476 (defining unfair/deceptive practices and substantial consumer injury)
Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771 (capacity to deceive/public interest standards under CPA)
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County, 164 Wn.2d 545 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Preston v. Duncan, 55 Wn.2d 678 (inferences from undisputed evidentiary facts may preclude summary judgment)
Wagner Dev. Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 95 Wn. App. 896 (standard for newly discovered evidence on reconsideration)
Nollette v. Christianson, 115 Wn.2d 594 (abuse of discretion review for declaratory judgment decisions)