Ponce v. Amazon.Com Services Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 16, 2022
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01718
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al., CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER CONSOLIDATING 11 CASES v. 12 AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 42(a)(2), the Court hereby consolidates Ponce v. Amazon.com Services Inc., Case No. 17 C19-1718-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2019); Keller v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. C19-1719-JCC (W.D. 18 Wash. 2019); Diaz v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C21-0419-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2021); and Puentes 19 v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. C21-1370-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2021) with this action for the 20 reasons explained below. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 The facts of this case have been outlined in a prior order, and the Court will not repeat 23 them here. (See Dkt. No. 115.) The Court has previously consolidated several related cases in 24 25 26 1 this action.1 In 2019, two cases—Ponce and Keller—were transferred to the Western District of 2 Washington pursuant to the “first-to-file” rule after finding “that all of the claims in both Keller 3 and Ponce are identical to, or closely mirror, the claims in” the instant action. See Ponce v. 4 Amazon.com Services Inc., Case No. C19-1718-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 74 at 3, 75 (W.D. Wash. 2019); 5 Keller v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 84, 85 (W.D. Wash. 2019). In 6 2021, two additional cases were transferred under the first-to-file rule. See Diaz v. Amazon.com 7 Inc, Case No. C21-0419-JCC, Dkt. No. 22 (W.D. Wash. 2021); Puentes v. Amazon.com Services 8 LLC, Case No. C21-1370-JCC, Dkt. No. 42 (W.D. Wash. 2021). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 If multiple actions before the Court involve a common question of law or fact, the Court 11 may consolidate the actions, and may do so sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2); In re Adams 12 Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing § 2383 Consolidation—Discretion of 13 Court, 9A FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2383 (3d ed.)). The Court has substantial discretion in 14 determining whether to consolidate the actions. Inv’rs Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. 15 Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In exercising its discretion to consolidate, the 16 Court ‘must balance the savings of time and effort consolidation will produce against any 17 inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.’” Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, 18 Case No. C14-0244-JCC, Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting Takeda v. Turbodyne 19 Tech., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). 20 “Once a common question of law or fact is identified, the Court considers factors such as 21 the interests of justice, expeditious results, conservation of resources, avoiding inconsistent 22 results, and the potential of prejudice.” Miller v. Monroe Sch. Dist., Case No. C15-1323-JCC, 23

24 1 See, e.g., Ronquillo v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C19-0398-JCC, Dkt. No. 33 (W.D. 25 Wash. 2019); Hoyt v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C19-0498-JCC, Dkt. No. 57 (W.D. Wash. 26 2019); Lawson v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C17-1438-JCC, Dkt. No. 41 (W.D. Wash. 2017). 1 Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2015). 2 Here, the transferred cases all share a common question of law—whether Amazon and its 3 affiliate’s practice of classifying certain delivery drivers as “independent contractors” is 4 improper.2 Failing to consolidate the transferred cases risks complications from the overlap in 5 their putative classes, claims, defendants, and core theory of defendants’ liability. In addition, 6 consolidating supports efficiency, conserves judicial resources, and avoids disparate court orders, 7 furthering the interests of justice. 8 III. CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, these cases are consolidated. The Clerk is DIRECTED to consolidate case 10 numbers C19-1719-JCC, C19-1718-JCC, C21-0419-JCC, and C21-1370 into case number C16- 11 1554-JCC. All future pleadings shall bear the case number C16-1554-JCC. 12 DATED this 16th day of June 2022. 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 2 Compare Dkt. No. 174 with Ponce v. Amazon.com Services Inc., Case No. C19-1718- JCC, Dkt. No. 18-4 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Keller v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. 25 No. 18-3 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Diaz v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C21-0419-JCC, Dkt. No. 18-5 26 (W.D. Wash. 2021); Puentes v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., Case No. C21-1370-JCC, Dkt. No. 1-3 (W.D. Wash. 2021).