Amazon Digital Services LLC v. Rubio

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 2, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00712
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00712-BAT 9 v. ORDER AND JUDGMENT 10 CONFIRMING ARBITRATION NILMER RUBIO, AWARD 11 Defendant. 12

13 Amazon Digital Services, LLC (“Amazon”) petitions the Court to confirm an arbitration 14 award and enter judgment against Respondent Nilmer Rubio (“Respondent”). Dkt. 1. For the 15 reasons set forth herein, the Petition is GRANTED. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On May 13, 2019, Amazon filed a Petition pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act 18 (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9, seeking an order confirming the American Arbitration Association 19 (“AAA”) arbitration award issued and signed by Arbitrator Christopher Keay on May 16, 2018 20 (the “Award”), and entry of judgment thereon pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 13. Dkt. 1. This Court has 21 jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 because the Award giving rise to this Petition was issued in 22 Seattle, Washington, less than one year before the Petition was filed. Id. Amazon does not seek 23 costs or fees as its Petition is unopposed. Id., fn. 5. 1 The Award 2 On September 6, 2017, Amazon filed a demand for arbitration (the “Demand”) with the 3 AAA, entitled Amazon Digital Services, LLC v. Nilmer Rubio., Case No. 01-17-0005-3166. Dkt. 4 2, Declaration of Benjamin Robbins, Ex. A. The Demand alleged that Respondent tried to 5 manipulate and abuse the Kindle Direct Publishing (“KDP”) service for financial gain and to the

6 detriment of KDP authors. The Demand further alleged that Respondent represented to authors 7 that he could artificially inflate their KDP royalties in exchange for a share of their additional 8 profits—as a kick back. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 7. Amazon asserted claims against Respondents for: (1) 9 breach of the Kindle Store Terms of Use; (2) breach of the Amazon Conditions of Use; (3) 10 intentional interference with contractual relations; and (4) violation of the Washington Consumer 11 Protection Act. 9. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 8. 12 On October 19, 2017, the AAA duly appointed Christopher Keay, Esq. as the Arbitrator. 13 Dkt. 2, Robbins Decl., Ex. B. On April 6, 2018, Arbitrator Keay presided over a telephonic 14 hearing, where despite repeated adequate notice, Respondent Nilmer Rubio did not appear, and

15 no counsel appeared on his behalf. Dkt. 10 at ¶ 10. 16 On April 23, 2018, Arbitrator Keay issued a partial final arbitration award in Amazon’s 17 favor and directed Amazon to file a cost and fee affidavit under RCW 19.86.090. On May 16, 18 2018, Arbitrator Keay signed and issued the Award in Amazon’s favor, which expressly 19 incorporated the April 23, 2018 partial final award. Dkt. 2, Robbins Decl., Ex. C. 20 The Award has not been vacated under 9 U.S.C. § 10 or modified or corrected under 9 21 U.S.C. § 11. Dkt. 1 at ¶ 13. Amazon brought this action within one year of the Award made on 22 May 16, 2018, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9. See Dkt. 1 (filed May 13, 2019). 23 1 Service of Respondent 2 Respondent was served with the statutorily required notice of the Petition in accordance 3 with 9 U.S.C. § 9. Dkt. 14 (Certificate of Service). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Glenn, No. C18- 4 1289-MJP, 2018 WL 5921005, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018) (service of nonresident 5 respondent in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 satisfies FAA Section 9’s

6 service requirement); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Arobo Trade, Inc., No. C17-0804JLR, 2017 7 WL 3424976, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2017) (same). Respondent has filed no opposition to 8 the Petition. 9 DISCUSSION 10 The FAA authorizes a party to an arbitration agreement to apply for an order confirming 11 the arbitration award “any time within one year after the award.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. “[T]he court must 12 grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 13 10 and 11 of this title.” Id. (emphasis added). 14 Respondent has not sought to vacate, modify, or challenge the Award. Therefore, the

15 limited statutory grounds under FAA Sections 10 and 11 are not present here. The Ninth Circuit 16 has held that the Court should confirm the award without reexamining the factual and legal 17 reasoning of the Arbitrator because “confirmation is required even in the face of ‘erroneous 18 findings of fact or misinterpretations of law’. . . [and even if] the Panel may have failed to 19 understand or apply the law.” French v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 784 F.2d 20 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Court enters 22 Judgment in accordance with the Award as follows: 23 1. The Award is confirmed in its entirety; 1 2. Respondent, along with each of his directors, principals, officers, employees, 2 representatives, successors, agents, and assigns are enjoined from: 3 a. Engaging, encouraging, or assisting in any practice involving the use of 4 fraudulent accounts, bots, clickfarms, or other tools to artificially increase page 5 views in violation of Amazon’s rules and policies;

6 b. Engaging, encouraging, or assisting in any practice that violates the 7 Amazon Conditions of Use or Kindle Store Terms of Use; and 8 c. Doing business with Amazon or any of its affiliated companies other than 9 as a retail customer. 10 DATED this 2nd day of September, 2020. 11 A 12 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23