Rittmann et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 134

ORDER to Consolidate re Defendants' 126 MOTION to Consolidate Cases . The Clerk is directed to consolidate case number C19-cv-00498-JCC into case number C16-01554-JCC. All future pleadings shall bear the case number C16-01554-JCC. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Dkt. No. 126).

16

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby

17

GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND
The facts of this case have been discussed in prior orders and the Court will not repeat

20

them here. (See Dkt. Nos. 77, 87, 115, 133.) In January 2019, Plaintiff Sean Hoyt filed a lawsuit

21

in the Northern District of California, alleging the same claims as those already consolidated into

22

Rittmann, with one additional California-specific claim. Compare Hoyt v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

23

Case No. C19-0498-JCC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (the “Hoyt complaint”), with

24

Mack/Lawson v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. C17-1438-JCC, Dkt. No. 19 (W.D. Wash. 2017)

25

(the “Mack complaint”) and Ronquillo v. Amazon.com, Inc., C19-0398-JCC, Dkt. No. 17 (W.D.

26

Wash. 2019) (the “Ronquillo complaint”) and (Dkt. Nos. 83, 87, 132) (the
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

“Mack/Ronquillo/Rittmann consolidation orders”). Like the complaints in Rittmann, Mack, and

2

Ronquillo, the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States Magistrate Judge for the

3

Northern District of California, said of Plaintiff Hoyt’s lawsuit: “The gravamen of Plaintiff’s

4

complaint is that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws by misclassifying its

5

California delivery drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.” See Hoyt, Case No.

6

C19-0498-JCC, Dkt. No. 25 at 1. Because of the substantial similarities between Hoyt and

7

Rittmann, Judge Corley transferred Hoyt to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the

8

first-to-file rule. See Hoyt, Case No. C19-0498-JCC, Dkt. No. 25. Defendants move the Court to

9

consolidate Hoyt into Rittmann for the same reasons that Judge Corley found transfer

10

appropriate. (See Dkt. No. 126); Hoyt, Case No. C19-0498-JCC, Dkt. No. 25.

11

II.

12

DISCUSSION
If multiple actions before the Court involve a common question of law or fact, the Court

13

may consolidate the actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). 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). “Once a common question of law or fact is

16

identified, the Court considers factors such as the interests of justice, expeditious results,

17

conservation of resources, avoiding inconsistent results, and the potential of prejudice.” Miller v.

18

Monroe Sch. Dist., Case No. C15-1323-JCC, Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “In exercising

19

its discretion to consolidate, the Court ‘must balance the savings of time and effort consolidation

20

will produce against any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.’” Ekin v.

21

Amazon Servs., LLC, Case No. C14-0244-JCC, Dkt. No. 21 at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting

22

Takeda v. Turbodyne Tech., Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1999)).

23

Rittmann and Hoyt present an identical question of law on an issue that the Court has

24

previously found sufficient for consolidation—whether Plaintiffs were improperly classified as

25

independent contractors. (See Dkt. Nos. 86, 87.) Additionally, all but one of Plaintiff Hoyt’s

26

claims are identical to those already consolidated into Rittmann. Therefore, there are common
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

questions of law and fact between the Rittmann and Hoyt actions.

2

Consolidating the actions will result in the conservation of resources and the avoidance of

3

inconsistent results, and it will promote the interests of justice. As Plaintiff Hoyt acknowledges

4

in his briefing, many aspects of his lawsuit would be handled most efficiently by joining the

5

Rittmann proceedings. (See Dkt. No. 129 at 13.) Joining certain litigation proceedings and

6

coordinating discovery, but still litigating separately, would be a waste of judicial resources in

7

this case. Although Plaintiff Hoyt argues that consolidation will result in prejudice because he

8

will not obtain the relief he seeks as quickly as if his lawsuit were to proceed independently, he

9

does not identify tangible prejudice that will result from that delay. (See id. at 11.) Moreover, the

10

factors favoring consolidation weigh more heavily than any prejudice Plaintiff Hoyt may face

11

because of delay.

12

III.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to consolidate (Dkt. No. 126) is

GRANTED.
DATED this 9th day of July 2019.

A

16
17
18

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 3