throbber
1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`MARY AND MATTHEW STREET,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, LLC., a Delaware Limited
`Liability Company; AMAZON DIGITAL
`SERVICES, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability
`Company,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NO. 2:21-cv-00912
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Mary and Matthew Street (“Plaintiffs”) file this Motion for Leave to File
`Amended Complaint as follows:
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`On July 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
`Digital Services, Inc., asserting individual and class action claims related to the implementation
`and functionality of Amazon’s “Sidewalk” program. Dkt. 1. Counsel for Amazon filed notices
`of appearance on July 13, 2021. Dkts. 11, 12, 14. Amazon waived service on July 27, 2021,
`which extended the deadline to answer the complaint to September 27, 2021. Dkts. 18, 19.
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`Before the Answer was due, counsel for Amazon represented that due to changes in
`Amazon’s corporate structure, Plaintiffs had incorrectly named the defendants. Amazon stated
`that the correct entities were Amazon.com, LLC and Amazon Digital Services, LLC
`(“Amazon”). The parties further discussed Amazon’s contention that an arbitration clause
`applied to the claims Plaintiffs asserted on behalf of “Ring” devices. Based on these
`discussions, the Parties stipulated that Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint naming the
`correct entities and removing claims related to Ring devices. Dkt. 28. The Court entered an
`order approving the stipulation on September 30, 2021. Dkt. 29.
`Pursuant to the stipulation and order, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on
`October 8, 2021. Dkt. 30. Amazon filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) on October
`28, 2021. Dkt. 31. Plaintiffs filed a response on November 19, 2021. Dkt. 34. Amazon filed a
`reply on December 3, 2021. Dkt. 37.
`While the motion to dismiss was pending, counsel realized that the deadline for filing a
`motion for class certification under this Court’s local rules was not stayed. Accordingly, the
`Parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the class certification briefing deadline and requested that
`the Court issue a new scheduling order after the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 38.
`The Court granted the request to stay the class certification proceedings, but it also ordered the
`parties “to proceed with discovery and initial disclosures if they have not already done so” and
`to “file a joint status report and proposed scheduling order no later than 1/19/2022.” Dkt. 39
`(minute order). The Parties filed their Joint Status report on January 19, 2022 (Dkt. 40), and the
`Court entered a scheduling order on February 10, 2022 (Dkt. 41).
`Consistent with the Court’s directive to begin discovery, Plaintiffs served document
`requests and requests for admission to Amazon on February 11, 2022. Declaration of Jason T.
`Dennett, ¶ 2. Amazon served responses to Plaintiffs’ requests on March 14, 2022. Id. These
`responses, however, did not include any documents. Instead, despite the Court’s order that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`discovery commence, Amazon refused to produce any documents until the Court ruled on the
`motion to dismiss. Id.
`
`PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
`The Court issued its order granting Amazon’s motion to dismiss on March 21, 2022.
`Dkt. 43 (“Order”). The Court’s rulings were premised on finding that Plaintiffs had not
`included sufficient factual allegations to support their claims and, accordingly, directed
`Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint. Id. Plaintiffs’ proposed Second
`Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pleads the following additional facts to address those
`deficiencies as set forth in Exhibit A1.
`1.
`The Streets plead that Sidewalk connected to and shared bandwidth
`through the Streets’ Echo device, addressing the deficiency the Order noted at page 4.
`SAC at ¶¶ 46–53.
`The Court noted that the Streets failed to include an explicit allegation that their own
`personal Echo was ever actually connected to the Sidewalk network or shared their bandwidth
`within that network. Plaintiffs could not do so because only Amazon has that information.
`Plaintiffs’ Amazon Echo device does not display or otherwise allow them access to
`information about Sidewalk’s use of bandwidth through that device. Declaration of Matthew
`Strebe at ¶¶ 8–10. Nor can the Street Plaintiffs access this information through their Amazon
`account or from their internet service provider, which would not show Sidewalk’s use of
`bandwidth through Plaintiffs’ device. Id. Amazon encrypts the data that shows how much of
`Plaintiffs’ bandwidth was used by Sidewalk, and only Amazon could decrypt it. Id. at ¶¶ 8–11.
`Amazon alone would have access to the information, and Amazon refuses to share it with its
`customers, the Streets. Id.; Dennett Decl., ¶ 3.
`On April 5, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff reached out to Amazon’s counsel to request
`“documents, including logs, showing the Sidewalk activity on the Streets’ Echo device during
`
`1 A redlined version of the SAC is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`the time that Sidewalk was enabled,” noting that these documents were responsive to
`previously served document requests. Dennett Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1. Although these requests sought
`documents pertaining to potential class members, in addition to the Streets, Plaintiffs proposed
`“to narrow those requests to this limited information given the Court’s order [on the motion to
`dismiss].” Id. Amazon took the position that its customers, the Streets, were not entitled to
`know how Sidewalk used their bandwidth through their Echo device, even in discovery. Id.
`The Streets now plead that (1) Amazon activated Sidewalk on June 8, 2021; (2)
`Amazon designed the Sidewalk components within the Streets’ Echo device for no purpose
`other than to automatically connect to other Amazon devices and use the Streets’ bandwidth
`without notice to the Streets; (3) the Streets live in a densely populated area near downtown
`Miami; (4) Amazon gave the Streets no notice before activating Sidewalk on their Echo device;
`and (5) the Streets did not opt out of Sidewalk until June 26, 2021. SAC at ¶¶ 46–53. If
`Sidewalk worked as Amazon designed it to during the 18 days that it was active on the Streets’
`Echo device, the Streets have sufficient evidence to plead on information and belief that
`Sidewalk used their bandwidth.
`2.
`The Streets plead that they have a limited data plan, addressing the
`deficiency the Order noted at page 4. SAC at ¶ 16.
`3.
`The Streets plead that Amazon obtained telecommunications services,
`addressing the deficiency the Order noted at page 8–9. SAC at ¶¶ 30–40; 82–83.
`Amazon created Sidewalk by taking private Internet bandwidth from Amazon
`consumers without compensation. SAC at ¶ 1. Amazon then sells access and use of Sidewalk
`wireless network to partner companies. Id. The partner companies sell devices that connect to
`Sidewalk via Bluetooth. Id. at ¶¶ 34–35. When such a device sends a packet of data to Amazon
`through an Echo device, it uses the Echo device owner’s personal Internet bandwidth. Id. at ¶
`36. Put another way, Amazon takes Internet bandwidth from the Streets and Class Members
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`and resells it to partner companies like Tile, without compensating or reimbursing the Streets or
`Class Members. Id. at ¶ 38.
`Amazon obtains telecommunication services when Sidewalk devices use bandwidth
`from the Streets and the Putative Class to create Sidewalk. Amazon then sells Sidewalk
`network services, including data use, to partner companies like Tile. Amazon obtains
`telecommunication services from the Streets and the Putative Class when Amazon’s partner
`companies’ Bluetooth devices like Tile send packets of data through Sidewalk to Amazon’s
`servers. Id. at ¶¶ 82-83.
`4.
`The Streets plead that Amazon received a benefit from Sidewalk at the
`expense of Plaintiffs and was unjustly enriched, addressing the deficiency the Court’s
`Order noted at pages 9–10. SAC at ¶¶ 30–40; 93.
`The Court further noted that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege a specific benefit that
`Amazon received from the Streets sufficient to support a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
`now allege that Amazon receives compensation—the details of which are not publicly available
`and are in Amazon’s possession—from third-party companies, such as Tile, for access and use
`of the Sidewalk network through Amazon. Because the network is built from the internet
`bandwidth of putative Class Members, including the Streets, Amazon is directly compensated
`for the use of internet bandwidth that rightfully belongs to the Streets and others. Although the
`specific details of this compensation are unknown and unavailable to the Streets, it is
`reasonable to infer that Amazon would not provide access to Sidewalk and devote resources to
`improving the functionality of services offered by Tile and other partner companies without
`financial incentives.
`
`ARGUMENT
`The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file this motion for leave to amend their complaint. Dkt.
`
`43. “[A] court should liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.” Sonoma Cty. Assoc. of
`Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). When faced with a request
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`to amend after a motion to dismiss is granted, the Court should consider whether there is
`“strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory move on the part of the movant,
`repeated failure to cure deficiency by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
`opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Id.
`(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). While prejudice to the opposing party is
`the primary consideration, “[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not
`appropriate unless it is clear . . . the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence
`Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Gonzales v.
`Allstate Ins., 19-5569, 2019 WL 4972327, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 7, 2019) (Settle, J.) (“Thus,
`the Court grants [plaintiff] leave to amend his complaint because it is at least unclear whether
`any amendment would be futile.”).
`
`Here, the Court granted the motion to dismiss based on its finding that Plaintiffs had not
`sufficiently pleaded certain facts necessary to support their claims. The Court did not find that
`Plaintiffs claims were barred as a matter of law or that Plaintiffs would be unable to plead these
`facts such that amendment would be futile. Moreover, Defendants would not be prejudiced by
`an amendment. Indeed, the Court expressly invited Plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
`Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A, cures the factual
`deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order. The proposed amended complaint alleges that the
`Streets had a limited internet data plan; the Streets spent time disabling the Sidewalk feature on
`their Echo device; Amazon directly obtained Plaintiffs’ telecommunication services; and
`Amazon received compensation from third parties, such as Tile, for use of the Streets’ and
`other Class Members’ internet bandwidth over the Sidewalk network. These allegations are
`based on information in Plaintiffs’ possession as well as allegations pleaded on information and
`belief consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. Specifically, because Amazon refused to
`produce documents that would show there was no third-party activity on the Streets’ device
`through the Sidewalk network, Plaintiffs are entitled to plead on information and belief that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00912-BJR Document 44 Filed 04/22/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`such activity occurred. See Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 928–29 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The
`Twombly plausibility standard … does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged upon
`information and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the possession and control of the
`defendant[.]” (internal quotation and citation omitted)).
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for
`leave to amend their complaint.
`
`DATED this 22nd day of April, 2022.
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`
`By: s/ Jason T. Dennett
`
`
`Jason T. Dennett, WSBA #30686
`By: s/ Rebecca L. Solomon
`
`
`Rebecca L. Solomon, WSBA #51520
`jdennett@tousley.com
`rsolomon@tousley.com
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`Telephone: 206.682.5600
`Fax: 206.682.2992
`
`THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
`Brad R. Sohn (admitted pro hac vice)
`1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1205
`Coral Gables, FL 33134
`Telephone: 786.708.9750
`Facsimile: 305.397.0650
`brad@bradsohnlaw.com
`
`LIPPSMITH LLP
`Graham B. Lippsmith (admitted pro hac vice)
`MaryBeth Lippsmith (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jaclyn L. Anderson (admitted pro hac vice)
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400
`Lost Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213.344.1820
`g@lippsmith.com
`mb@lippsmith.com
`jla@lippsmith.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
`1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`TEL. 206.682.5600 • FAX 206.682.2992
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket