Puentes v. Amazon.com Services LLC

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al., CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC Plaintiffs, ORDER CONSOLIDATING 11 CASES v. AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), the Court hereby consolidates Ponce v. Amazon.com Services Inc., Case No. 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 v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. C21-1370-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2021) with this action for the 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 them here. (See Dkt. No. 115.) The Court has previously consolidated several related cases in this action.1 In 2019, two cases—Ponce and Keller—were transferred to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the “first-to-file” rule after finding “that all of the claims in both Keller and Ponce are identical to, or closely mirror, the claims in” the instant action. See Ponce v. Amazon.com Services Inc., Case No. C19-1718-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 74 at 3, 75 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Keller v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 84, 85 (W.D. Wash. 2019). In 2021, two additional cases were transferred under the first-to-file rule. See Diaz v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C21-0419-JCC, Dkt. No. 22 (W.D. Wash. 2021); Puentes v. Amazon.com Services 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 may consolidate the actions, and may do so sua sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2); In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing § 2383 Consolidation—Discretion of Court, 9A FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2383 (3d ed.)). The Court has substantial discretion in 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 Court ‘must balance the savings of time and effort consolidation will produce against any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.’” Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, Case No. C14-0244-JCC, Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting Takeda v. Turbodyne 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 the interests of justice, expeditious results, conservation of resources, avoiding inconsistent results, and the potential of prejudice.” Miller v. Monroe Sch. Dist., Case No. C15-1323-JCC, 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. 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 affiliate’s practice of classifying certain delivery drivers as “independent contractors” is improper.2 Failing to consolidate the transferred cases risks complications from the overlap in their putative classes, claims, defendants, and core theory of defendants’ liability. In addition, consolidating supports efficiency, conserves judicial resources, and avoids disparate court orders, furthering the interests of justice.

8 III. CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, these cases are consolidated. The Clerk is DIRECTED to consolidate case numbers C19-1719-JCC, C19-1718-JCC, C21-0419-JCC, and C21-1370 into case number C16- 1554-JCC. All future pleadings shall bear the case number C16-1554-JCC.

12 DATED this 16th day of June 2022.

A John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.

No. 18-3 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Diaz v. Amazon.com Inc, Case No. C21-0419-JCC, Dkt. No. 18-5 (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).