Waithaka v. Amazon.com Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01320
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 BERNARD WAITHAKA, Case No. C19-1320RSM 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 11 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Before the Court is Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc. 16 (“Amazon”)’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. #113), Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. #134) 17 and Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #146) filed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(n) and in 18 support of their Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration. 19 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Amazon sells products through various channels and contracts with 22 independent contractors like Plaintiff Bernard Waithaka through an application-based program 23 called Amazon Flex (“AmFlex”). See Dkt. #135 at 2. AmFlex drivers like Mr. Waithaka use 24 25 their personal vehicles to make local deliveries. Id. at 4. Mr. Waithaka signed an Amazon Flex 26 Independent Contractor Terms of Service (“TOS”) as a requirement to make deliveries in the 27 Boston Area. See Dkt. # 31-2 at 10. Through the TOS, Mr. Waithaka agreed to arbitrate disputes 28 and did not opt out of arbitration within the allotted 14 days. Id. However, Mr. Waithaka argues 1 that his agreement falls within the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) exemption for a class of 2 3 workers engaged in interstate commerce, and thus his claims are not subject to arbitration. See 4 9 U.S.C. § 1; see also Dkt. #140. Whether or not his agreement falls within the FAA exemption 5 for workers engaged in interstate commerce is the key issue at this juncture of Mr. Waithaka’s 6 case. 7 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 On August 28, 2017, Mr. Waithaka commenced this putative class action in Worcester 10 County Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Dkt. #1 ¶1. On October 29, 11 2017, Amazon removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of 12 Massachusetts, but the case was remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction. On September 7, 13 14 2018, Amazon removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of 15 Massachusetts for a second time. 16 On April 2, 2019, Amazon moved to compel arbitration, or in the alternative, to transfer 17 or stay the litigation. Dkt. #29. The Honorable Judge Timothy S. Hillman denied Amazon’s 18 motion to compel arbitration but found transfer to this Court was warranted. Dkt. #59. On 19 20 August 20, 2019, the case was transferred to this Court. Dkt. #60. 21 On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration. 22 Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2794 (2021), 23 reh’g denied, 141 S. Ct. 2886 (2021). The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in a similar 24 25 case several weeks later. Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. 26 denied, 141 S. Ct. 1374 (2021). Amazon sought Supreme Court review in both cases, which the 27 Supreme Court denied. However, in June 2022 the Supreme Court decided a similar case 28 involving the FAA exemption. Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 1783, 213 L. Ed. 2d 27 1 (2022).1 Amazon then brought their Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration forward, arguing 2 3 that Saxon constitutes a change in the law and the First Circuit’s holding must be reassessed. 4 Dkt. #134. Specifically, Amazon argues that Saxon stands for the proposition that “last leg” 5 drivers such as Waithaka do not belong to a class of workers directly involved in interstate 6 transportation and thus do not fall under the FAA exemption. See Dkt. #134 at 19. 7 8 On October 21, 2022, Amazon filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority informing the 9 Court that the Supreme Court had vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Carmona v. Domino’s 10 Pizza, LLC, 21 F.4th 627 (9th Cir. 2021), which was cited at page 12 of Defendants’ Renewed 11 Motion. Id. at 12. In Carmona, the Ninth Circuit relied on Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 12 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020), to conclude that certain intrastate truck drivers were exempt from the 13 14 Federal Arbitration Act because of their “transportation of interstate goods on the final leg of 15 their journey.” 21 F.4th at 630. The Supreme Court decided that the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion 16 warrants “further consideration in light of Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).” 17 Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Carmona, 143 S.Ct. 361, 2022 WL 9552609, at *1 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2022). 18 Amazon argues that given the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate and remand the case in light 19 20 of the decision in Saxon, Carmona’s application of Rittmann is no longer binding Ninth Circuit 21 precedent. 22 Plaintiff filed a response to Amazon’s Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. #147. 23 Plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari or reverse in Carmona; it merely 24 25 directed the Ninth Circuit to evaluate its decision on remand in light of its recent guidance in 26 Saxon. Id. at 2. The Court agrees. However, the Court is concerned whether it can determine 27

28 1 On December 15, 2021, Amazon filed a Motion to Stay pending the Supreme Court’s review of Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon. Dkt. #113. As an order has now been issued in this case, the Court denies the motion as moot. that Mr. Waithaka’s agreement falls within the FAA exemption for workers engaged in interstate 1 commerce before the Ninth Circuit re-evaluates its decision in Carmona and requires full briefing 2 3 on the issue. 4 Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 5 1. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this 6 Order why this case should not be stayed pending the outcome of Carmona v. 7 8 Domino’s Pizza in the Ninth Circuit. 9 2. Defendants shall SHOW CAUSE no later than seven (7) days from the date of this 10 Order why this case should not be stayed pending the outcome of Carmona v. 11 Domino’s Pizza in the Ninth Circuit. 12 3. Defendants’ Motion to Stay, Dkt. #113, is DENIED as Moot. 13 14 DATED this 30th day of January, 2023. 15

16 17 A 18 19 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20

21 22

24 25 26 27 28