### FILED **APRIL 3, 2018**  **In the**  **Office of** **the Clerk**  **of Court**  **WA State** **Court of** **Appeals, Division**  **III**

**IN THE**  **COURT OF**  **APPEALS OF**  **THE STATE**  **OF WASHINGTON**  **DIVISION THREE**  **WORK-FORCE SOLUTIONS,**  **INC,**

**Respondent,**
**V. ANTOINE**  **CREEK FARMS,**  **LLC,**

**Appellant. )** 

**) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **) )**  **No. 35049-5-III** 

**UNPUBLISHED OPINION** 

**KORSMO, J.**  **-Antoine Farms**  **appeals from**  **a summary** **judgment entered**  **in favor**  **of Work-Force**  **Solutions that**  **granted judgment**  **to Work-Force**  **and dismissed**  **Antoine's counterclaims.**  **Concluding that**  **there was** 
**. no**  **modification of** **the parties'**  **agreement, that**  **Antoine Farms**  **failed to**  **support its**  **counterclaims, and**  **that there**  **was no**  **public interest**  **impact to** **justify a**  **Consumer Protection**  **Act (CPA)**  **claim, we**  **affirm. Ch.**  **19.86 RCW.**  **FACTS Antoine** **Farms, in**  **2014, entered**  **into the**  **new business**  **of producing**  **marijuana for**  **commercial sellers**  **in Washington.**  **The farm**  **is located**  **in Okanogan**  **County and**  **has**
**some on-site**  **employees. In**  **order to**  **have enough**  **labor to**  **harvest its crop,**  **Antoine No.**  **35049-5-III**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms** 
**turned to**  **Work-Force, a**  **temporary employment**  **agency located**  **in East**  **Wenatchee that**  **would provide**  **laborers as**  **needed. The**  **companies did**  **not have**  **a written**  **contractual relationship,**  **but operated**  **pursuant to**  **an oral**  **agreement beginning**  **in March**  **2014. In**  **general terms,**  **Work-Force would**  **screen workers**  **and send**  **those suitable**  **for harvest**  **work to** **Antoine Farms. At**  **least initially, Antoine**  **would only accept** **workers who**  **did not**  **have criminal**  **convictions and**  **had passed**  **drug tests;**  **Work-Force was**  **responsible for**  **conducting background**  **checks and**  **performing drug**  **testing. Work-Force would** **pay wages**  **to the**  **workers and** **then invoice**  **the wage**  **amount to**  **Antoine along** **with its**  **own markup** **for services.**  **Antoine was**  **permitted to**  **hire employees** **on a**  **permanent basis.**  **On a**  **weekly basis,**  **Work-Force would**  **send Antoine**  **Creek a**  **"net 10"**  **invoice, giving**  **Antoine 10**  **days to**  **pay the**  **amount due.**  **The invoice**  **contained the**  **name of** **each employee**  **Work-Force had**  **sent Antoine**  **Creek and**  **the number**  **of hours**  **each worked.**  **While these**  **invoices show**  **the names**  **of dozens**  **of individuals**  **who labored**  **for consecutive**  **weeks at** **Antoine Creek, not**  **all individuals** **sent to**  **the farm**  **by Work-Force** 
**were good**  **fits for**  **the work.**  **On occasion,**  **workers arrive**  **without proper**  **clothing or**  **otherwise failed**  **to perform. There also** **were occasions** **where temporary workers were**  **caught smoking**  **marijuana on**  **the premises** **and were**  **fired.**



### 2**No. 35049-5-111** 



### Work-Force **Solutions v.**  **Antoine Creek** **Farms**
**Over the**  **course of** **the year,**  **Antoine became**  **late with**  **payments. By**  **September, payments** **were 49**  **days late**  **with Antoine**  **owing $32,812.**  **Work-Force threatened**  **to not**  **allow its**  **employees to**  **move on**  **to the**  **Antoine payroll**  **until the** **payments were**  **made up.**  **Nonetheless, by**  **October, Antoine**  **notified Work-Force**  **that it**  **needed additional**  **crew members** **while it**  **geared up**  **for harvest.**  **Antoine indicated**  **it was**  **willing to**  **ease up**  **on the**  **criminal background requirements. When**  **Work-Force texted**  **Antoine's president**  **to confirm**  **the change,**  **he replied:**  **"Light" criminals**  **or reformed**  **are ok.**  **The issue**  **is we**  **need people**  **ASAP. The**  **weather is**  **going to**  **destroy the**  **crop unless**  **we bring**  **it in.**  **All hands**  **on deck**  **so to**  **speak[.] Use**  **your best** **judgment on**  **who to**  **send but**  **we need**  **a massive**  **surge-thanks! Clerk's**  **Papers (CP)**  **at 56-57.**  **Antoine failed**  **to pay**  **Work-Force over**  **the next**  **six weeks**  **and the**  **balance owed**  **grew to**  **over $60,000.**  **Antoine made**  **some payments**  **and Work-Force**  **thanked them**  **for the**  **payments, but**  **indicated it**  **would not**  **send any**  **more employees**  **until "outstanding**  **invoices are**  **brought down**  **to under**  **30 days**  **and a**  **consistent pattern**  **of payment**  **is being**  **made." CP**  **at 50.**  **Antoine made** **partial payments**  **on the**  **invoices into**  **February 2015.**  **Later that**  **month, Antoine's**  **president indicated**  **his intent**  **to pay**  **the outstanding**  **balance of** **$47,975.05 as**  **follows: $5,000.00**  **on March**  **15, 2015;**  **$10,000.00 on**  **April 15,**  **and the**  **balance of** **$32,975.05 on**  **May 15.**  **CP at**  **137. Work-Force**  **did not**  **respond to**  **the**



### 3**No. 35049-5-III** 

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms**  **proposal. Antoine**  **made the**  **$5,000 March** **payment, but**  **only paid**  **$5,000 in**  **April and**  **$1,388 in**  **May. Antoine**  **then proposed**  **to make**  **$500 payments**  **each month**  **on the**  **15th. Work-Force filed**  **suit against** **Antoine on**  **June 19,**  **2015, alleging**  **breach of**  **contract and**  **asserting that**  **over $37,000** **was owed. Antoine answered** **the following**  **month, denying**  **the allegations**  **and raising**  **several affirmative**  **defenses, including**  **that the**  **parties had**  **reached a**  **repayment agreement.**  **Antoine also**  **asserted counterclaims,**  **eventually alleging**  **that Work-Force**  **had breached**  **the contract**  **by failing**  **to provide**  **qualified workers,**  **failing to** **properly screen**  **workers, and**  **refusing to**  **permit direct** **hiring of** **Work-Force's employees.**  **Also among**  **the allegations**  **was a**  **Consumer Protection**  **Act claim.**  **In April**  **2016, Work-Force**  **moved for**  **summary judgment**  **on its**  **complaint and**  **to dismiss** **the counterclaims.**  **Antoine responded**  **and argued**  **that there**  **were disputed**  **questions of** **material fact** **precluding summary** **judgment. The**  **trial court**  **ruled in**  **favor of**  **Work-Force, concluding that**  **there was**  **no modification**  **of the**  **contract that**  **changed the**  **repayment obligations.**  **The court**  **also rejected**  **the counterclaims,**  **ruling that**  **Antoine had**  **not proven** **that it**  **suffered losses**  **due to**  **the workers**  **supplied by**  **Work-Force and**  **that the**  **CPA did**  **not apply**  **to this**  **agreement. Antoine**  **timely appealed**  **to this**  **court. A**  **panel heard**  **oral argument**  **on the**  **matter.**

**4 No.**  **35049-5-111**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms** 
**ANALYSIS Antoine's** **appeal presents**  **three issues,**  **which we**  **address in**  **a slightly**  **different order**  **than the**  **appellant does.**  **After initially**  **discussing the**  **standards governing**  **our review**  **of this**  **appeal, we**  **tum first**  **to the**  **trial court's**  **ruling on**  **Work-Force's complaint.**  **We then**  **consider the**  **ruling concerning**  **the counterclaims**  **before turning**  **to the** **CPA**
**issue. Appeals**  **from summary** **judgment are**  **reviewed under**  **well settled**  **principles. We**  **review a**  **summary judgment ruling de**  **novo. Lybbert**  **v. Grant**  **County, 141**  **Wn.2d 29,**  **34, 1**  **P.3d 1124 (2000).**  **The facts,**  **and all**  **reasonable inferences**  **to be**  **drawn from** **them,**
**are viewed**  **in the**  **light most**  **favorable to**  **the nonmoving**  **party. Id.**  **If there**  **is no**  **genuine issue**  **of material**  **fact, summary** **judgment will**  **be granted**  **if the**  **moving party**  **is entitled to**  **judgment as**  **a matter**  **of law.**  **Id.; CR**  **56(c). This**  **court may**  **also determine**  **a question**  **of fact**  **as a** **matter of law**  **when reasonable**  **minds can** **reach only**  **one conclusion.**  **Miller v.**  **Likins, 109**  **Wn. App.**  **140, 144,**  **34 P.3d**  **835 (2001).**  **Work-Force's Claim**  **Antoine argues**  **that summary** **judgment should**  **not have**  **been granted** **to Work**  **Force on**  **its complaint**  **because the**  **agreement had**  **been modified**  **by the**  **parties. It**  **thus argues**  **there is**  **at least**  **a question**  **of material**  **fact that**  **should be**  **decided at**  **trial. However,**  **there is**  **no evidence**  **that Work-Force**  **agreed to**  **Antoine's proposed**  **debt restructuring**  **or that**  **there was**  **any consideration**  **for the**  **alleged modification.**  **5 No.**  **35049-5-111**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms** 
**The evidence**  **shows that**  **Work-Force repeatedly**  **requested that**  **Antoine catch**  **up**
**on its**  **payments, Antoine**  **would promise**  **to catch**  **up, and**  **then it**  **would fail**  **to keep**  **its promise.**  **Ultimately, Antoine**  **proposed a**  **payment plan**  **where it**  **would pay**  **thousands of**  **dollars each**  **month and**  **retire the**  **debt in**  **three months. Instead,**  **it could**  **not rpaintain that**  **schedule into**  **the second**  **month and**  **unilaterally informed**  **Work-Force it** **would instead only** **pay $500**  **a month.**  **1 Antoine**  **never produced**  **any evidence showing**  **Work-Force agreed**  **to any**  **of its**  **proposed payment**  **modifications except**  **for an**  **e-mail that**  **stated, "Thank**  **you for**  **paying what**  **you could."**  **This "thank**  **you," however,**  **was immediately**  **followed by**  **the information**  **that Work-Force**  **would no**  **longer be**  **able to**  **send employees**  **to Antoine**  **because of** **the underpayments.**  **This in**  **no way**  **shows an**  **agreement to**  **a partial** **payment plan.**  **A second**  **problem, highlighted**  **by the**  **trial judge,**  **is that**  **there was**  **no consideration**  **offered for**  **the alleged**  **modification. There** **must be**  **independent consideration**  **supporting the**  **modification of** **a contract**  **separate from**  **the consideration**  **supporting the**  **original agreement. Rosellini**  **v. Banchero,**  **83 Wn.2d**  **268, 273,**  **517 P.2d**  **955 (1974).**  **The parties**  **have not**  **identified any**  **independent bargained-for**  **consideration**

**1 The** **trial court**  **noted the**  **absurdity of** **expecting Work-Force**  **to agree**  **to a**  **proposal that**  **would, without**  **interest, take**  **61 months**  **to retire**  **the debt.**  **6 No.**  **35049-5-111**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms** 
**for us**  **and, like**  **the trial** **judge, we**  **discern none**  **from this**  **record. 2**  **For this**  **reason, too,**  **the modification**  **argument fails.**  **Antoine did**  **not dispute**  **the debt**  **owed to**  **Work-Force. It**  **also never**  **demonstrated that**  **the two**  **sides had**  **agreed to**  **a modification**  **or that**  **there was**  **any bargained-for**  **consideration for**  **doing so.**  **Accordingly, there**  **were no**  **material facts**  **in dispute.**  **The trial**  **court properly**  **granted summary** **judgment to**  **Work-Force on**  **its debt**  **claim. Counterclaims**  **Antoine also**  **argues that**  **the court**  **erred in**  **dismissing its**  **counterclaims, again**  **contending that**  **material questions**  **of fact**  **existed. However,**  **Antoine never**  **showed that**  **Work-Force's alleged**  **failures actually**  **caused Antoine's**  **losses. In**  **order to**  **prevail on**  **a breach**  **of contract**  **claim, a** **party must**  **establish that**  **( 1)**  **a duty**  **imposed by**  **the contract**  **(2) was**  **breached, with**  **(3) damages**  **proximately caused**  **by the** **breach. Nw.**  **Indep. Forest Mfrs.**  **v. Dep't**  **of Labor**  **& Indus.,**  **78 Wn.**  **App. 707, 712,**  **899 P.2d**  **6 (1995).**  **The trial court**  **concluded that**  **Antoine's counterclaims**  **failed on** **the final** **element.**

**2 Antoine**  **suggests on**  **appeal that**  **its forbearance**  **from asserting**  **its own**  **legal claims**  **operated as**  **consideration. But**  **consideration must**  **be bargained**  **for. See**  **RESTATEMENT (SECOND)** **OF CONTRACTS**  **§ 71**  **(AM. LAW**  **INST. 1981).**  **There is**  **no evidence**  **that Work-Force**  **was aware**  **of any**  **claims and**  **sought forbearance.**  **7 No.**  **35049-5-111**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms** 
**Antoine contends**  **that Work-Force**  **breached their**  **agreement by**  **sending unqualified**  **workers, workers** **who had not**  **been subjected**  **to drug**  **screening, and**  **workers who**  **had not**  **been subjected**  **to criminal**  **background checks.**  **Accepting the**  **truth of** **these allegations,**  **as must**  **be done**  **at summary** **judgment, Antoine**  **still failed**  **to provide**  **evidence that**  **it was**  **harmed by**  **these failures.**  **How did**  **the harvest**  **efforts of** **workers who**  **had not**  **been screened**  **or tested**  **harm Antoine?**  **How did**  **they effect**  **its cash**  **flow? How**  **did any**  **unqualified, or** **poorly qualified,**  **workers hurt**  **Antoine? In** **the absence**  **of information**  **that there**  **were better**  **workers who**  **would have**  **been sent**  **but for**  **the unqualified** **workers in**  **place, Antoine**  **simply has**  **no evidence**  **that the**  **workers who**  **appeared somehow**  **impacted the**  **company's bottom**  **line. 3**  **The trial**  **court correctly**  **determined that**  **Antoine could**  **not show**  **it was**  **damaged by**  **Work-Force's alleged**  **failures. Accordingly,**  **summary judgment**  **was properly granted** 
**on the**  **counterclaims. Consumer** **Protection Act**  **Claim The**  **final contention**  **we address**  **is the**  **claim that**  **the trial**  **court erred**  **in dismissing**  **Antoine's CPA**  **claim. Because**  **Antoine failed**  **to establish the**  **public interest element,**  **the trial**  **court correctly**  **determined that**  **the claim**  **failed as**  **a matter**  **of law.** 

**3 Antoine's**  **contention that**  **it made**  **more money**  **the second**  **year when**  **it was**  **not dependent**  **on Work-Force**  **for harvest**  **workers does**  **not raise**  **a material**  **question of** **fact in**  **the absence**  **of showing**  **that the**  **conditions the**  **second year**  **were alike**  **enough that**  **the only**  **significant difference**  **was the**  **quality of** **the workforce.**  **8 No.**  **35049-5-111**

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms**  **Washington's Consumer** **Protection Act**  **is codified** **at chapter**  **19.86 RCW.**  **To establish**  **a claim under the CPA,**  **a party** **must prove**  **( 1)**  **an unfair**  **or deceptive**  **act or**  **practice (2)**  **occurring in** **trade or**  **commerce (3)**  **with a**  **public interest**  **impact, and**  **( 4)**  **an injury** **to the** **plaintiff in**  **his or**  **her business**  **or property,**  **(5) caused**  **by that**  **act or** **practice. Klem**  **v. Wash.** **Mut. Bank,**  **176 Wn.2d**  **771, 782,**  **295 P.3d**  **1179 (2013).**  **The public**  **interest impact**  **element is**  **informed by**  **consideration of** **five relevant**  **factors. Those**  **five factors**  **are: (1)**  **Were the**  **alleged acts**  **committed in** **the course**  **of the**  **defendant's business?**  **(2) Are**  **the acts**  **part of** **a pattern**  **or generalized**  **course of**  **conduct? (3)**  **Were repeated**  **acts committed**  **prior to**  **the act**  **involving plaintiff?**  **( 4)**  **Is there**  **a real**  **and substantial**  **potential for**  **repetition of**  **defendant's conduct after the**  **act involving**  **plaintiff? (5)**  **If the**  **act complained**  **of involved**  **a single**  **transaction, were**  **many consumers**  **affected or**  **likely to**  **be affected** **by it?**  **Hangman Ridge**  **Training Stables,**  **Inc. v.**  **Safeco Title** **Ins. Co.,**  **105 Wn.2d**  **778, 790,**  **719 P.2d**  **531 (1986).**  **Although the**  **first of** **the five**  **factors is**  **undoubtedly satisfied,**  **it is**  **doubtful that**  **any of** **the other**  **factors are**  **satisfied. The**  **allegation that Work-Force**  **breached its**  **agreement with**  **Antoine simply**  **does not**  **suggest that**  **the public**  **was negatively**  **impacted. There**  **is no**  **evidence that**  **Work-Force breached**  **similar agreements**  **with its**  **other clientele**  **before or**  **after its**  **relationship with**  **Antoine. There**  **is no**  **indication that**  **anyone other**  **than Antoine**  **was somehow**  **effected. In**  **short, the**  **record does**  **not establish**  **any**



### 9**No. 35049-5-111** 

**Work-Force Solutions**  **v. Antoine**  **Creek Farms**  **public impact.**  **This case**  **was simply**  **a breach**  **of contract**  **case; it**  **was not**  **a matter**  **affecting Washington**  **consumers. The**  **trial court**  **correctly recognized**  **that the**  **evidence did**  **not support**  **the CPA**  **claim. Summary** **judgment was**  **properly granted.**  **Affirmed. A**  **majority of** **the panel**  **has determined**  **this opinion**  **will not**  **be printed**  **in the**  **Washington Appellate**  **Reports, but**  **it will**  **be filed**  **for public**  **record pursuant**  **to RCW**  **2.06.040. �**  **�**
**o, J** 
**. WE**  **CONCUR:**
**Fearing,**

## f 

# J)·dkw. 

# if'· **Siddoway, J.**  **�'**

**10**