Opinion
C19-1320-JCC C23-0161-JCC C23-0178-JCC C16-1554-JCC
06-09-2023
In re AMAZON WAGE CLAIM LITIGATION
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' responses to the Court's order to show cause why these matters should not be consolidated for further proceedings. See Rittmann, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C16-1554-JCC, Dkt. No. 282 (W.D. Wash. 2016); Waithaka v. Amazon.com Inc., et. al., C19-1320-JCC, Dkt. No. 155 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Marcelo, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et. al., C23-0161-JCC, Dkt. No. 55 (W.D. Wash. 2023); Sitaca, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C23-0178-JCC, Dkt. No. 38 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Based on the reasoning provided in the Rittman Plaintiffs' response (Dkt. No. 283), which the Court incorporates as its own, the Court will not further consolidate these matters.
Given the chronology of the Marcelo and Sitaca actions, and the similarity of their parties and issues with Rittman, the Court STAYS Marcelo , C23-0161-JCC, and Sitaca , C23-0178-JCC, pending a final ruling on the merits in Rittman , C16-1554-JCC. This is consistent with the first to file rule, as well as this Court's inherent authority to control cases on its docket. See T-Mobile N.E., LLC v. Sel. Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 WL 3417110, slip op. at 2-4 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (citing Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015) (articulating factors in applying the first to file rule). Doing so will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings between each case and avoid duplicative putative class action litigation involving the same parties and claims. Moreover, the possibility of prejudice to the Marcelo and Sitaca plaintiffs is low. If Rittman is certified, they may elect to participate as members in Rittman. And if not, at a minimum, many of the legal determinations made in Rittman would apply with equal force to Marcelo and Sitaca.
In contrast, Waithaka is not appropriate for consolidation based on its case development and the dissimilar claims to that of Rittman. However, given the current pendency of rulings from the Ninth Circuit in Carmona v. Domino's Pizza LLC, No. 21-55009 (9th Cir.), and Miller v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-36048 (9th Cir.), the Court EXTENDS the stay in Waithaka , C19-1320-JCC, and again STAYS Rittman , C16-1554-JCC, pending the Ninth Circuit's mandate in Carmona or Miller , whichever is issued later. This stay applies to all putative plaintiffs in both Rittman and Waithaka, including non-arbitration opt-in plaintiffs. While the Court appreciates the impact of this ruling on those plaintiffs, it must balance this with considerations of judicial efficiency and the need for consistent rulings for all plaintiffs on shared issues. This would be difficult to accomplish were the Court to allow Rittman to proceed for the non-arbitration plaintiffs but not for the plaintiffs potentially impacted by potential Ninth Circuit rulings in Carmona and/or Miller. Moreover, the Court notes that Rittman was filed many years ago. At this point, a short delay would not materially prejudice any of its plaintiffs.
The parties in Waithaka , C19-1320-JCC, and Rittman , C16-1554-JCC, 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 containing proposed case management schedules for their respective cases through class certification, with due consideration given to possible renewed motions from Defendants in each case to compel arbitration and/or to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motions in each case for class certification. If the parties are unable to agree on a schedule, they may provide the Court with individual proposals, but must do so within a single joint status report for each case.