## Facts

- Jeff Haley founded and led OraHealth USA, Inc., which sold products through Amazon.com Services, LLC (Amazon).
- In 2012, Haley entered into a marketing agreement with Amazon (commonly described as a marketing development fund or MDF agreement) that permitted Amazon to deduct 10% of Haley’s net sales receipts.
- The agreement contained an auto-renewal clause providing that it would renew for additional one-year terms unless a party gave timely written notice of nonrenewal.
- Haley asserted that later in 2012 he opted out of the automatic renewal by submitting an opt-out/nonrenewal form and following up by phone.
- Haley claimed that at least one Amazon representative confirmed that Amazon received his opt-out request.
- Haley alleged that, despite his opt-out, Amazon continued taking deductions under the agreement.
- Haley sued Amazon seeking declaratory relief and asserting related claims tied to whether the marketing agreement remained in effect.
- At summary judgment, Haley moved for summary judgment and submitted his own declaration describing, from personal knowledge, the steps he took to opt out.
- Amazon opposed Haley’s motion and submitted a declaration asserting Amazon had no record of Haley’s opt-out communications.
- The trial court characterized Haley’s declaration as “self-serving,” found it not credible, and concluded Haley did not opt out; it denied Haley’s motion.
- The trial court later relied on these factual determinations to grant summary judgment to Amazon and dismiss Haley’s complaint.
- Haley appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err at summary judgment by rejecting Haley’s declaration as “self-serving,” making credibility determinations, and resolving disputed facts about whether Haley opted out of an auto-renewing agreement?

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted to Amazon and the dismissal of Haley’s complaint.
- The court held that summary judgment is not a procedure for evaluating the weight of evidence or the credibility of witnesses.
- The court ruled that the trial court improperly discounted Haley’s evidence because it was “self-serving” and improperly resolved factual disputes in Amazon’s favor.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because material factual disputes remained for the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, courts view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record shows genuine disputes of material fact.
- Trial courts may not weigh evidence, decide credibility, or make factual findings when ruling on summary judgment.
- A party’s own declaration can create a triable issue if it is based on personal knowledge, sets out specific facts, and would be admissible at trial; it cannot be disregarded merely because it benefits the declarant.

## Conclusion

Haley v. Amazon.com Services holds that a trial court may not use summary judgment to decide whether a party’s sworn account is believable or to reject it as “self-serving” where it is based on personal knowledge and addresses disputed material facts; because the parties offered conflicting evidence about whether Haley opted out of an auto-renewing marketing agreement, the dismissal on summary judgment was reversed and the case returned for further proceedings.


Haley v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 522 P.3d 80 (2022)