Street et al v. Amazon.com Services Inc et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 51 MOTION for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (SB)

1

The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

MARY AND MATTHEW STREET,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12

v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,

NO. 2:21-cv-0912-BJR

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT

Defendants.

13
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration and Motion

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

to Amend Judgment.” Dkt. No. 51. On March 21, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. 1 See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss (“Dismissal
Order”), Dkt. No. 43. The dismissal was “grounded in the insufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations”
and, the “case being in its relatively early stages,” was without prejudice. Dismissal Order at 11.
The Court authorized Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend their First Amended Complaint to cure
the deficiencies identified by the Court. Id.

21
22
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint per stipulation of the parties, to delete certain allegations and correct
technical errors in their original complaint.

1

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

-1

1

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 44.

2

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“PSAC”), filed with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

3

Amend, contained additional factual allegations. The Court concluded, however, that those

4

allegations ultimately failed to cure the original deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, and

5

denied the motion. See Order Denying Motion to Amend (“Order”), Dkt. No. 49. Specifically, the

6

Court concluded that the PSAC “failed to articulate a ‘concrete and particularized’ injury and thus

7

. . . not only inadequately states any claim; it also fails to establish that these Plaintiffs have

8

standing.” Order at 9. The Court found that even if the PSAC contained allegations supporting

9

standing, “Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded a cognizable injury supporting any of their three

10

claims,” the same flaw identified in the Court’s first Dismissal Order. Id. The Court consequently

11

denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend their First Amended Complaint, dismissed the matter with

12

prejudice, and entered a Judgment on August 25, 2022. Dkt. No. 50. The only revision that

13

Plaintiffs seek by the instant motion is that the dismissal be without, rather than with, prejudice.

14

Under Local Rule 7(h), “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will

15

ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a

16

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier

17

with reasonable.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Similarly, amendment of a judgment authorized under

18

Federal Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co.

19

v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

20

1255 n. 1 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per curiam)). Amendment is appropriate, relevant here, only

21

“to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests” or “to prevent manifest

22

injustice.” Id.

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

-2

1

Plaintiffs’ instant motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order and amendment of the

2

Judgment. In particular, Plaintiffs challenge dismissal of their claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs

3

argue that since the Court concluded that the PSAC “fail[ed] to establish [they] have standing,”

4

dismissal was based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore must be without

5

prejudice. Mot. to Am. Jdgmt. at 3 (citing Frigard v. U.S., 862 F.2d 201, 203 (9th Cir. 1988) (per

6

curiam)).

7

Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. In its first Order of Dismissal, the Court granted

8

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim. See Dismissal Order

9

at 3-4 (citing Federal Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6)). In the subsequent Order Denying Leave to Amend,

10

the Court concluded that the Proposed Second Amended Complaint also failed to state a claim,

11

and reaffirmed that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint would therefore be dismissed, this time

12

with prejudice. See Order at 9 (“Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded a cognizable injury

13

supporting any of their three claims.”).

14

To the extent that any clarification is necessary, the Court notes that statements regarding

15

standing in its Order Denying Leave to Amend were made in reference to the Proposed Second

16

Amended Complaint which, as Defendants point out, “was never filed or operative.” Defs.’ Opp.

17

at 5; see, e.g., Order at 6 (“[T]he Court concludes that the Streets have failed to allege facts in the

18

PSAC that would give rise to an inference that they have been injured.”). Whether or not the

19

unfiled Proposed Second Amended Complaint alleged facts sufficient to confer standing is, at

20

most, dicta with respect to the holding of the Dismissal Order: that the Plaintiffs’ First Amended

21

Complaint—the operative complaint—failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

22

That dismissal stands, except—because Plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies despite a full and

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

-3

1

fair opportunity to do so—it is now with prejudice. Granting this dismissal with prejudice was

2

within the Court’s discretion under Federal Rule 15, which encourages the liberal allowance of

3

amendment except in cases of “undue delay,” and, particularly relevant here, “repeated failure to

4

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316

5

F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This case was

6

filed nearly a year and a half ago (the scheduled Discovery Cutoff is in less than three weeks), and

7

Plaintiffs have been given two substantive chances to state their claims. Under these

8

circumstances, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either a “manifest error” or the “injustice”

9

required for reconsideration and amendment of a judgment. The Motion for Reconsideration and

10

Motion to Amend are therefore denied.
DATED this 29th day of November, 2022.

11
12

A

13

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

25

-4