T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OH N R. ATCHLE Y a n d M I CHAEL GI L R OY , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v . P E P P E R I D G E F A R M I N C . , aC onne c t i c ut c orpor a t i on, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lle e . N o. 09- 35275 D. C . No . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 4 5 2 - F VS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on F r e d L . V a n S i c kl e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: T A S H IM A , F IS H E R an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ohn R . A t c hl e y a nd M i c ha e l G i l r oy ( “ A ppe l l a nt s ” ) appe a l f r om aj udgm e nt ent er ed i n a ca se ar i si ng fr om the pu rc hase and o pera t i on of P epperi dg e F arm di s tr i but or s hi ps . W e a f f i rm i n pa rta nd r e ve r s e i n pa rta nd r e m a nd. 

# FI LED MA Y14 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T he di stri ctcourterre d i n g rant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o P epperi dg e F arm o n A p p e lla n ts ’ W a s h in g to n F r a n c h is e I n v e s tm e n t P r o te c tio n A c t ( “F I P A ” ) c la im by fi nd i ng thatthey had no tpai d a fr anchi se fe e. P ay m ent s f or “ the m andat ory pur c ha s e of

goods ors e rvi c e s ” a r e f e e s unde rF I P A . W a s h. R e v. C ode § 1 9 .1 0 0 .0 1 0 ( 1 2 ) ; s e e al

s o B lanton v . Mobi l

O i l C or p. , 7 2 1 F .2 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 2 0 ( 9 th C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng unde rF I P A tha tthe r e qui r e d pur c ha s e of unw a nt e d goods c o u ld b e af

r a n c h is e f

e e ) . A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t P e p p e r id g e F a rm e f f e c tiv e ly r e qui r e d the m t o pur c ha s e goods by m a nda t i ng i nve nt ory l e ve l s a nd c ontr ol l i ng pa l l e ts hi pm e nt s a nd the n r e qui r i ng A ppe l l a nt s t o pa y f ors om e pr oduc ttha tw e nt s ta le p r io rto s a le . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d th a t “P la in tif

f s w e r e n e v e rr e q u ir e d to p u r c h a s e as e t q u a n tityo f [ P e p p e r id g e F a rm ] p r o d u c t.” H o w e v e r , A p p e lla n ts subm i tt ed evi dence t o sup po rtthei r c l ai m t o the contrary . T here i s there fore a g e n u in e d is p u te o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t p r e c lu d in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n the othe rha nd, w e a f f i rm the gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o P e ppe r i dge F arm on A pp el l ant s’ W as hi ng t on B usi ness O pp ortun i ty F raud A ct(“ B O F A ”) cl ai m . W e are skept i ca l thatW as hi ng t on st at e c ou rt s w ou l d ado ptthe di stri ct c o u rt’s n a rr o w c o n s tru c tio n o f “s e lle r ” u n d e rB O F A . Se e H abe rm an v . W

as h. P ub. P o w er Su

p p l y S ys. , 74 4 P . 2d 10 32 , 10 51 -52 (W as h. 19 87 ) ( i nt erpret i ng a s i m i l ar t e rm of the W a s hi ngt on S t a t e S e c ur i t i e s A c tbr oa dl y i n or de rt o f ul f i l l the3

“ l egi sl at i ve pu rpose” ). H ow ever , w e nee d n otre ac h thi s quest i on because, as P ep p eri d g e F arm arg u es, i ti s n o tap p aren tth ata d i stri b u t o rsh i p i s a b u si n ess o p p o rtu n ity u n d e rth e A c t, a n d A p p e lla n ts h a v e o f f e r e d n o c o u n te r - a r g u m e n t. See W a s h. R e v. C ode § 19. 110. 020( 1) ( de f i ni ng abus i ne s s opportuni ty a s “ the s a l e or le a s e o f a n y p r o d u c t, e q u ip m e n t, s u p p ly , o rs e rv ic e w h ic h is s o ld o rle a s e d to enabl e the pu rc hase r t o st arta busi ness ”) . W e a l s o a f

f i rm the di s m i s s a l of

A ppe l l a nt s ’ ne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i m a s ba rr e d by the c ons i gnm e nta gr e e m e nt ’ s non- r e l i a nc e c l aus e . T he a g r e e m e n t is af

u lly in te g r a te d c o n tr a c t, s u b je c t to th e p a r o l e v id e n c e ru le . See B e r g v . H ude s m an , 8 0 1 P .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 3 0 ( W a s h . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e a g r e e m e n t s p e c if ic a lly re qu i re d d i stri bu t ors t o rem ov e s t al e produ ctfr om st ore s hel ves and prov i ded that P epperi dg e F arm had n o o bl i gat i on t o acc eptst al e goo ds. T he bal ance of fa ct ors the W a s hi ngt on c ourt s ha ve e s t abl i s he d ba r s r e l i a nc e on othe rr e pr e s e nt a t i ons c o n c e rn in g th e s ta le p r o d u c t p o lic y . See Stew art v. Estat e of

St ei ner , 93 P . 3d 919, 92 7 (W as h. C t . A pp . 20 04 ). F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n f i ndi ng tha tP e ppe r i dge F arm ’ s s al e of G i l roy’ s r ou t e w as com m er ci al l y r ea sonabl e. P epperi dg e F arm unde rt ook e f

f ort s i n e xc e s s of

or di na ry pr oc e dur e s f

orm a rke t i ng adi s tr i but or s hi p, e a s ily s a tis f

y in g th e s ta n d a r d f

o rac o m m e r c ia lly r e a s o n ab le s a le . See W a s h. R e v.4

C od e § 62 A . 9A -627 (b)( 1). “ T he fa ctthata gre at eram ou ntcoul d h ave been obt a i ne d . . . a tadi f

f e r e ntt i m e ori n adi f

f e r e ntm e thod f

r om tha ts e l e c t e d by the s e c ur e d pa rty i s notof

i t s e l f s uf f i c i e ntt o pr e c l ude the s e c ur e d pa rty f r om e s tab lis h in g th a t . . . d is p o s itio n . . . w a s m a d e in ac o m m e r c ia lly r e a s o n ab le m anner. ” I

d. § 5 1 5 A .9 A - 6 2 7 ( a ) . AF F I RME D I N P AR T AN D R E V E RS E D I N P AR T AN D RE MAND E D. P a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts .