Rivera v. Amazon Web Services Inc

1 THE HONORABLE JOHN H. CHUN 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC |} AVELARDO RIVERA and YASMINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE |! others similarly situated, FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SECOND B AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 14 y. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: July 20, 2023 || AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 17 Defendant.

STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS EDELSON PC TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -l|- 350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor, Chicago, IL 60654 CASE NO. 9:22-CV-00269-JHC Tel: 312 589 6370 + Fax: 312 589 6378 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and LCR 15, Plaintiffs Avelardo Rivera and Yasmine || Romero (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or “AWS”) |] (together, the “Parties’”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and || agree that Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), a redlined version of || which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully request that the Court enter an order || granting Plaintiffs leave to file their SAC. In support of the instant stipulated motion, the Parties || state as follows: 8 1. WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended || Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. 44.)

10 2. WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC pursuant |] to Rule 12(b)(6), and the Parties have fully briefed the motion, which is currently pending a ruling.

12 || (Dkts. 45, 48, 49.)

13 3. WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, the Court held a telephonic hearing and, after the || hearing, entered a minute order directing the Parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding || whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue their claims under Section 15(a) of the | Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). (Dkt. 79.)

17 4. WHEREAS, Defendant consents to Plaintiffs filing their Second Amended | Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which adds allegations relating to Plaintiffs’ Section 15(a) || claims. By consenting to the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC, Defendant does not admit the truth || of any of the allegations in the SAC, including the newly proposed allegations.

21 5. WHEREAS, should the Court accept the Second Amended Complaint, these new || allegations should answer the question as to whether Article III standing exists. Specifically, || Plaintiffs allege that AWS failed to comply with the requirements of 15(a) by failing to timely || destroy Plaintiffs’ biometric data. (See SAC §§ 44, 51, 66.) The Court asked the Parties to address || the Patterson v. Respondus, Inc. case, in which the Patterson court found that Plaintiffs lacked || Article III standing because they did not allege “that Respondus failed to comply with a retention- TOPILESECONDAMENDED COMPLAIN =2- SON ae TE un 08 CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00269-JHC TESTE S89 Bans 312 589 8378 || and-destruction policy or that Respondus otherwise retained their biometric data beyond the time || limits set by section 15(a).” See 593 F. Supp. 3d 783, 814 (N.D. IIL. 2022), reconsideration denied, || No. 20 C 7692, 2022 WL 7100547 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2022). With the Second Amended Complaint, || Plaintiffs allege those facts. Article III standing accordingly exists under the logic of both || Patterson and the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC. See 980 1146, 1154 (7th Cir. 2020) (finding Article III standing where “[Plaintiff] accuses || [Defendant] of violating the full range of its section 15(a) duties by failing to develop, publicly || disclose, and comply with a data-retention schedule and guidelines for the permanent destruction || of biometric data when the initial purpose for collection ends.”) (emphasis in original).

10 6. WHEREAS, the Parties believe that this Stipulated Motion resolves the questions || posed by the Court without burdening the Court with further briefing; however, the Parties are || willing to submit any further briefing as the Court may require, and as quickly as the Court may || require.

14 7. WHEREAS, the Parties further agree that, given the limited amendments in the || SAC, the present briefing on the motion to dismiss remains sufficient, and request that the Court || consider the Parties’ briefing on the motion to dismiss to relate to the SAC, without the need for || Defendants to otherwise respond to the SAC. (Dkts. 45, 48, 49.)

18 IT IS SO STIPULATED (subject to Court Order).

50 Dated: July 20, 2023 EDELSON PC By: /s/ Alexander G. Tievsky 21 Alexander G. Tievsky, WSBA #57125 22 By: /s/_J. Eli Wade-Scott 33 J. Eli Wade-Scott, pro hac vice 34 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: July 20, 2023 PERKINS COIE LLP By: /s/ Ryan M. Spear TOPILESECONDAMENDED COMPLAIN =3- SON ae TE un 08 CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00269-JHC TESTE S89 Bans 312 589 8378 1 Ryan M. Spear, WSBA #39974 2 Attorney for Defendant STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS EDELSON PC CASE NO doDeN ona Nt “4- ON wan Tena 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their Second Amended Complaint.

4 2. Based on the allegations in the SAC, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have Article HI 5 standing to pursue in federal court their claims under Section 15(a) of the Illinois 6 Biometric Information Privacy Act, consistent with Patterson v. Respondus, Inc., 593 F.

7 Supp. 3d 783, 814 (N.D. Ill. 2022), reconsideration denied, No. 20 C 7692, 2022 WL 8 7100547 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2022) and Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC., 980 9 F.3d 1146, 1154 (7th Cir. 2020).

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 DATED this 21st day of July, 2023.

4 By: < K , Chor.

HOW. JOHN H. CHUN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS EDELSON PC CASE NO doDeN ona Nt “>> ease BS