Erickson v. Enviro Tech Chemical Services Inc

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jul 10, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ANDREW ERICKSON, a married No. 1:23-CV-03118-MKD man, and CRAIG BELFIELD, a married man, ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 9 Plaintiffs, AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO WITHDRAW 10 v. TRADEMARK CLAIMS ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL ECF No. 74 SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, d/b/a OrganiClean, 13 Defendant.

14 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Specific Claims Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), ECF No. 74. Plaintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice, and without an award of fees and costs to either party, of their Lanham Act, trademark infringement, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims. The Court directed further briefing on this Motion to determine whether there was a proper legal basis to grant it. ECF No. 89.

1 Defendant filed supplemental briefing confirming that it does not oppose the dismissal of these claims. ECF No. 90. As such, the Court construes the Motion as an unopposed motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint by withdrawing the Lanham Act, trademark infringement, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims, and grants it. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir. 2005) (construing the plaintiff’s unopposed “withdrawal” of a claim as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) amendment of the complaint). This matter proceeds on the remaining claims pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) accounting, ECF No. 17, and Defendant’s conditional counterclaims for (1) breach of contract and (2) unjust enrichment, as pleaded in response to the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 1. Plaintiffs’ construed Unopposed Motion to Amend to Withdraw Trademark Claims, ECF No. 74, is GRANTED.

16 2. Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act, trademark infringement, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to the parties.

3 DATED July 10, 2025.

4 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE