U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Ferguson v. Active Response Group

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 8, 2009 · Ikuta, Nelson, Silverman

348 F. App'x 255

Counsel

Douglas E. McKinley, Jr., Law Office of Douglas E. McKinley Jr., Richland, WA, Robert J. Siegel, I. Justice Law, PC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Stephan A. Barber, Esquire, Daniel McKinnon, Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, PC, San Jose, CA, Todd R. Sorensen, Esquire, John Alan Knox, Williams Kast-ner & Gibbs, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Mark J. Ferguson appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant Quin-street, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the summary judgment decision de novo, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Ferguson lacks standing to pursue his claim under the CAN-SPAM Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. See Gordon, 575 F.3d at 1048-57 (holding that a plaintiff who merely provided e-mail accounts and hosted a website on leased server space did not have standing under CAN-SPAM). In addition, the district court correctly concluded that Ferguson’s state law claims under Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.010 et seq. and Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.010 et seq. are preempted by CAN-SPAM. See Gordon, 575 F.3d at 1057-66.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.