Rittmann et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 289

ORDER: the Court STAYS this case, pending the Ninth Circuit's mandate in Carmona or Miller, whichever is issued later. The parties are hereby ORDERED, within fourteen (14) days of the later-filed Ninth Circuit mandate in Carmona or Miller to provide the Court with a joint status report. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
In re: AMAZON WAGE CLAIM
LITIGATION

11

CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC
CASE NO. C19-1320-JCC
CASE NO. C23-0161-JCC
CASE NO. C23-0178-JCC

12

ORDER

10

13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ responses to the Court’s order to show

16 cause why these matters should not be consolidated for further proceedings. See Rittmann, et al.
17 v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C16-1554-JCC, Dkt. No. 282 (W.D. Wash. 2016); Waithaka v.
18 Amazon.com Inc., et. al., C19-1320-JCC, Dkt. No. 155 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Marcelo, et al. v.
19 Amazon.com Inc., et. al., C23-0161-JCC, Dkt. No. 55 (W.D. Wash. 2023); Sitaca, et al. v.
20 Amazon.com Inc., et al., C23-0178-JCC, Dkt. No. 38 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Based on the
21 reasoning provided in the Rittman Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. No. 283), which the Court
22 incorporates as its own, the Court will not further consolidate these matters.
23

Given the chronology of the Marcelo and Sitaca actions, and the similarity of their

24 parties and issues with Rittman, the Court STAYS Marcelo, C23-0161-JCC, and Sitaca, C2325 0178-JCC, pending a final ruling on the merits in Rittman, C16-1554-JCC. This is consistent
26 with the first to file rule, as well as this Court’s inherent authority to control cases on its docket.
ORDER
CASE NOS. C16-1554-JCC, C19-1320-JCC, C23-0161-JCC, C23-0178-JCC
PAGE - 1

1 See T-Mobile N.E., LLC v. Sel. Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 WL 3417110, slip op. at 2–4 (W.D. Wash.
2 2018) (citing Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also
3 Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015)
4 (articulating factors in applying the first to file rule). Doing so will eliminate the risk of
5 inconsistent rulings between each case and avoid duplicative putative class action litigation
6 involving the same parties and claims. Moreover, the possibility of prejudice to the Marcelo and
7 Sitaca plaintiffs is low. If Rittman is certified, they may elect to participate as members in
8 Rittman. And if not, at a minimum, many of the legal determinations made in Rittman would
9 apply with equal force to Marcelo and Sitaca.
10

In contrast, Waithaka is not appropriate for consolidation based on its case development

11 and the dissimilar claims to that of Rittman. However, given the current pendency of rulings
12 from the Ninth Circuit in Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. 21-55009 (9th Cir.), and Miller
13 v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-36048 (9th Cir.), the Court EXTENDS the stay in Waithaka,
14 C19-1320-JCC, and again STAYS Rittman, C16-1554-JCC, pending the Ninth Circuit’s
15 mandate in Carmona or Miller, whichever is issued later. This stay applies to all putative
16 plaintiffs in both Rittman and Waithaka, including non-arbitration opt-in plaintiffs. While the
17 Court appreciates the impact of this ruling on those plaintiffs, it must balance this with
18 considerations of judicial efficiency and the need for consistent rulings for all plaintiffs on shared
19 issues. This would be difficult to accomplish were the Court to allow Rittman to proceed for the
20 non-arbitration plaintiffs but not for the plaintiffs potentially impacted by potential Ninth Circuit
21 rulings in Carmona and/or Miller. Moreover, the Court notes that Rittman was filed many years
22 ago. At this point, a short delay would not materially prejudice any of its plaintiffs.
23

The parties in Waithaka, C19-1320-JCC, and Rittman, C16-1554-JCC, are hereby

24 ORDERED, within fourteen (14) days of the later-filed Ninth Circuit mandate in Carmona
25 or Miller, to provide the Court with a joint status report containing proposed case
26 management schedules for their respective cases through class certification, with due
ORDER
CASE NOS. C16-1554-JCC, C19-1320-JCC, C23-0161-JCC, C23-0178-JCC
PAGE - 2

1 consideration given to possible renewed motions from Defendants in each case to compel
2 arbitration and/or to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motions in each case for class certification. If the
3 parties are unable to agree on a schedule, they may provide the Court with individual proposals,
4 but must do so within a single joint status report for each case.
5
6
7
8
9
10

DATED this 9th day of June 2023.

A

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
CASE NOS. C16-1554-JCC, C19-1320-JCC, C23-0161-JCC, C23-0178-JCC
PAGE - 3