throbber
Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`AMAZON’S MOTION FOR
`CONSOLIDATION
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS DOROBIALA,
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION FOR
`CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Consolidation does not serve the interests of judicial economy because there is
`little factual overlap and no common claim with the other lawsuits. ......................5
`
`Consolidating the claims of the separate plaintiffs’ groups into a single complaint
`creates needless confusion and prejudices the rights of the various classes asserted
`by each plaintiff group. ............................................................................................9
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - i
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Almeida v. Barr,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64537 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2020) .................................................4, 7
`
`Anderson Living Tr. v. WPX Energy Production, LLC,
`297 F.R.D. 622 (D.N.M. 2014) ..................................................................................................9
`
`Bedrock Masonry, Inc. v. Innovative Construction & Design Ltd.,
`2020 WL 4196036 (E.D. Wash. July 21, 2020).........................................................................8
`
`Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc.,
`2013 WL 6008308 (W.D. Wash 2013) ......................................................................................8
`
`De Coster v. Amazon,
`2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9960 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022) ..................................................5, 10
`
`Ekin v. Amazon Services, LLC,
`2014 WL 12028588 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2014).....................................................................8
`
`Fairhaven Health, LLC v. BioOrigyn, LLC,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241794 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2021).................................................10
`
`Gray v. Suttell & Associates,
`2010 WL 11437034 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010) ......................................................................8
`
`Harry & David v. ICG Am., Inc.,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92961 (D. Or. Sept. 7, 2010)..........................................................9, 11
`
`Jackson v. Berkey,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72786 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2020) .....................................................7
`
`Marlow v. Hotchkiss,
`2015 WL 5254250 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2015) .........................................................................8
`
`Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2022 WL 4483123 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022) ......................................................................8
`
`Pierce v. County of Orange,
`526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2994634 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2019) .........................................................................8
`
`Tashiro-Townley v. Bank of New York Mellon,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85642 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2016) .....................................................7
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - ii
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`Terwilleger v. Grays Harbor Cty.,
`2019 WL 2118776 (W.D. Wash May 14, 2019) ........................................................................9
`
`Ultimate Timing, L.L.C. v. Simms,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55831 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2010) .....................................................6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`2018 WL 2059565 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2018) .........................................................................9
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2)..................................................................................................................10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1)..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - iii
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Thomas Dorobiala objects to Amazon’s motion to consolidate the instant action
`
`with Nicholas v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01616-RSM (“Nicholas action”), and Daly v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00910-RSM (“Daly action”), because consolidation does not
`
`serve any valid purpose. Amazon’s superficial depiction of the allegations of dark patterns as the
`
`common thread among the three complaints ignores the fact that Plaintiff seeks to represent a
`
`different class, challenges different conduct, and seeks different remedies than the plaintiffs in
`
`the Nicholas and Daly actions. Amazon does not identify any common claims or factual issues
`
`that warrant consolidation to preserve judicial resources, nor is consolidation needed to prevent
`
`10
`
`inconsistent rulings, given that the same Court already presides over all three cases. By contrast,
`
`11
`
`consolidating the claims of three disparate plaintiff groups into a single complaint obscures the
`
`12
`
`logical structures of their respective actions, jeopardizes the representation of the respective
`
`13
`
`classes they assert and the prosecution of their respective claims, and senselessly forces a
`
`14
`
`leadership battle among their respective counsel.
`
`15
`
`Specifically, in the instant action Plaintiff relies on Amazon’s contractual choice of law
`
`16
`
`provision and seeks to recover damages on behalf of a single national class under the
`
`17
`
`Washington Consumer Protection Act caused by Amazon’s implementation of dark patterns in
`
`18
`
`the online cancelation procedure for Prime subscriptions. Plaintiff would be substantially
`
`19
`
`prejudiced in his defense of dispositive motions, class certification, and at trial if, instead of
`
`20
`
`defending a single claim on behalf of a single class of consumers injured by a single course of
`
`21
`
`conduct, he was forced to defend seven classes, thirteen claims, varying monetary remedies, and
`
`22
`
`requests for injunctive relief based on a broader set of actions concerning Amazon’s advertising,
`
`23
`
`enrollment, credit card charging, and cancelation procedures for 11 subscription services from
`
`24
`
`Amazon and an indefinite number of products available through Amazon’s Subscribe and Save
`
`25
`
`program. Equally, Plaintiff would be prejudiced in discovery, where instead of having a
`
`26
`
`presumptive right to take up to 10 depositions or serve up to 26 interrogatories to obtain the
`
`27
`
`testimony he needs to pursue his case, he would have to vie with the other plaintiffs’ groups,
`
`28
`
`who would also rely on those presumptive limitations to support their collective claims.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 1
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Further, consolidation is not needed to coordinate discovery between the related cases.
`
`For example, the parties could stipulate to the same protective and ESI orders. They could ensure
`
`cooperation among parties seeking to depose the same witness by stipulating to a common
`
`protocol, and they could minimize duplicative discovery by stipulating that documents produced
`
`in one action would be treated as if produced in the related actions. These practices would
`
`streamline the discovery process without jeopardizing the prosecution of the respective cases of
`
`the three plaintiffs’ groups.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The instant action, filed on November 9, 2022, alleges that Amazon intentionally
`
`10
`
`implements dark patterns in the design of its online Prime cancellation procedure to impede
`
`11
`
`Prime members’ efforts to cancel their membership. Plaintiff relies on the Norwegian Consumer
`
`12
`
`Council’s January 2021 report determining that Amazon employs dark patterns in the wording,
`
`13
`
`graphic design, and redundancies to make its online cancellation process for Prime subscriptions
`
`14
`
`needlessly difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating to users, as well as Amazon’s own internal
`
`15
`
`assessment that implementing the deceptive design decreased Prime cancellation by as much as
`
`16
`
`14%. Compl. at ¶¶ 5, 7 (ECF No. 2). Whereas Amazon continues to employ dark patterns in its
`
`17
`
`Prime cancellation process here in the United States, Amazon conceded to European regulators’
`
`18
`
`demands that it shorten its lengthy Prime cancellation process from six clicks to two and that it
`
`19
`
`remove the deliberate misdirection that Amazon employs in its cancellation process to distract or
`
`20
`
`dissuade Prime members from cancelling. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff seeks to represent a national class of
`
`21
`
`Prime subscribers who incurred subscription fees when they fell prey to Amazon’s use of dark
`
`22
`
`patterns in its online cancellation process. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff further relies on the choice of law
`
`23
`
`provision of Amazon’s terms of use for its Prime members, which provides that Washington law
`
`24
`
`governs Amazon’s conduct with respect to all Prime members nationwide. Id. ¶ 49. He alleges
`
`25
`
`that Amazon’s conduct violates the Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) and
`
`26
`
`seeks to enjoin it from further use of dark patterns in the Prime cancellation process and to
`
`27
`
`recover fees that Amazon charged class members who attempted—clicked on at least two
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 2
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`webpages in the cancellation process—but were unable to complete their cancellation. Id. ¶¶ 41,
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff’s action was preceded by the Nicholas action, filed on August 25, 2022, in
`
`Illinois state court. That action alleges that Amazon applies dark patterns also in the enrollment
`
`and cancellation process for consumers who purchase products on a subscription basis through
`
`Amazon’s Subscribe and Save Program and that Amazon’s disclosures in its advertising and
`
`enrollment of that program fail to comply with Illinois’ automatic renewal law (“ARL”) and
`
`consumer protection statute. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 32, 62-80, Nicholas, No. 2:22-cv-01616-RSM
`
`(W.D. Wash. December 5, 2022), ECF No. 35 (hereafter “Nicholas Am. Compl.”). The Nicholas
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff initially sought only to represent an Illinois class, but upon removal to federal court, she
`
`11
`
`amended her complaint on December 5, 2022, to include a WCPA claim, common law fraud,
`
`12
`
`and unjust enrichment on behalf of a national class of Subscribe & Save subscribers who clicked
`
`13
`
`on at least two webpages in an unsuccessful attempt to complete the Subscribe & Save online
`
`14
`
`cancellation process. Id. ¶¶ 51-61, 81-94.
`
`15
`
`The Daly action, filed on June 29, 2022, preceded both actions. The intent and purpose of
`
`16
`
`the Daly action is very different from the instant action, as evidenced by the fact that neither
`
`17
`
`party even mentions Amazon’s use of dark patterns in their briefing on Amazon’s motion to
`
`18
`
`dismiss. See Daly, ECF Nos. 20, 22, and 23. Rather, the Daly Plaintiffs seek to recover damages
`
`19
`
`on behalf of a national class and California and Oregon subclasses of subscribers to one or more
`
`20
`
`of 11 Amazon subscriptions on grounds that these class members were deceived by Amazon’s
`
`21
`
`failure to obtain adequate consent to charge their credit card under Amazon’s automatic renewal
`
`22
`
`policy or to disclose that its subscription is free to consumers only if they cancel before the next
`
`23
`
`billing period. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 3-8, Daly, No. 2:22-cv-00910-RSM (W.D. Wash. Sept. 21,
`
`24
`
`2022), ECF No. 14 (hereafter “Daly Am. Compl.”).
`
`25
`
`In Amazon’s motion to dismiss it frankly acknowledges that the “crux” of the Daly
`
`26
`
`complaint is not the use of dark patterns in the Prime online cancellation process, but that
`
`27
`
`“Amazon’s disclosures” in its advertising and enrollment of 11 “subscription services allegedly
`
`28
`
`fail to comply with California’s and Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 3
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`§§ 17600 et seq., Or. Rev. Stat. § 646A.295) (together “ARLs”), and Oregon’s Free Offer Law
`
`(Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.644) (“FOL”), and therefore Amazon also is purportedly liable under
`
`various common law misrepresentation and statutory consumer protection theories.” Mot. to
`
`Dismiss 1st Am. Compl. at 1, Daly, No. 2:22-cv-00910-RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 14, 2022), ECF
`
`No. 20 (hereafter “Daly MTD”). The Daly Plaintiffs rely on allegations of Amazon’s use of dark
`
`patterns in its online cancelation processes not as an independent basis for recovery but as
`
`supplemental allegations in support of their California and Oregon ARL claims. See Daly Am.
`
`Compl. ¶ 216 (dark patterns alleged in support of punitive damages under Oregon’s ARL); id.
`
`¶ 238 (among other deficiencies, Amazon’s online cancellation process fails to satisfy the
`
`10
`
`statutory requirement of offering an easy cancellation method under California’s ARL). And
`
`11
`
`further the Daly Plaintiffs do not claim that the implementation of dark patterns in the
`
`12
`
`cancelation process violates any of the claims asserted on behalf of the national class. Id. ¶ 273
`
`13
`
`(conversion, alleging “charges made by Defendants to Plaintiffs’ and Nationwide Class
`
`14
`
`members’ Payment Methods without authorization); id. ¶ 280 (unjust enrichment, alleging
`
`15
`
`“Defendants’ failure to disclose material terms of the purchase agreement . . . induced Plaintiffs
`
`16
`
`and the Nationwide Class to purchase the Amazon Subscriptions.”); id. ¶ 284 (negligent
`
`17
`
`misrepresentation, “Defendants misrepresented in their advertisements and related statements
`
`18
`
`made in connection with the sign-up and purchase processes for the Amazon Subscriptions . . .
`
`19
`
`material facts concerning billing, cancellation, and automatic payment terms, policies, and
`
`20
`
`requirements.”); accord id. ¶ 292 (fraud).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), this Court has the discretion to consolidate
`
`23
`
`actions that involve common questions of law and fact. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d
`
`24
`
`1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). In determining whether to exercise its discretion, the Court considers
`
`25
`
`whether it would serve the interests of judicial economy or conversely whether delay or
`
`26
`
`prejudice may result from consolidation. Almeida v. Barr, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64537, at *4
`
`27
`
`(W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2020).
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 4
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Consolidation does not serve the interests of judicial economy because there is little
`factual overlap and no common claim with the other lawsuits.
`
`Amazon superficially focuses on the other lawsuits’ common allegations of Amazon’s
`
`use of dark patterns in the design of its online cancelation procedures to impede consumers from
`
`cancelling their subscriptions. But these allegations do not serve as grounds for consolidation
`
`here because each lawsuit presents “different accusations. Amazon is huge; it may get accused of
`
`violating” consumer protection laws “many times a year, in many different ways, and not all of
`
`these actions can or should be consolidated. It is not clear that judicial economy would be served
`
`by throwing everything into a single case.” De Coster v. Amazon, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9960,
`
`at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2022). For example, in De Coster, this Court declined to consolidate
`
`related antitrust cases that both alleged that Amazon coerced third-party sellers to sign up for its
`
`logistics service because one case asserted these allegations in support of a tying claim while the
`
`other asserted it as a demonstration of Amazon’s power over of its sellers in connection with a
`
`price-fixing claim. Id. at *3.
`
`The same reasoning applies here and counsels against consolidation, where allegations
`
`concerning dark patterns serve very different purposes in each of the three lawsuits that make
`
`separate accusations against Amazon. In the instant action, Plaintiff seeks to represent a national
`
`class of Prime subscribers to recover subscription fees incurred each time they unsuccessfully
`
`attempted to cancel their subscriptions online. His core allegations are that Amazon redesigned
`
`its online cancellation procedure for Prime subscriptions so that it includes dark patterns that
`
`force consumers to click through a confusing series of at least six web pages, a design which it
`
`internally acknowledged caused a 14% reduction in Prime membership cancellations. And he
`
`further alleges that while Amazon continues to harm U.S. consumers, it took corrective action in
`
`Europe at the direction of EU regulators by removing dark patterns from its online cancelation
`
`procedure and allowing European Prime subscribers to cancel their subscriptions by clicking on
`
`just two webpages.
`
`Whereas Amazon’s use of dark patterns in its online Prime cancellation procedure is the
`
`core issue in the instant case, it is, for several reasons, of only tangential importance in the Daly
`
`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
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 5
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`case. First, Prime is just one of 11 subscription services asserted in the Daly action. Second, as
`
`Amazon candidly recognized in its motion to dismiss, “[t]he thrust of [the Daly] Plaintiffs’ FAC
`
`is” not that Amazon used dark patterns to prevent them from canceling their subscriptions, but
`
`that “Amazon violated [automatic renewal laws and free offer laws] by allegedly violating
`
`certain statutory formatting and disclosure requirements” when class members signed up for
`
`Prime and other 10 subscriptions at issue in that lawsuit. Daly MTD at 14. Third, none of the
`
`Daly Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of the national class even references Amazon’s cancellation
`
`policies, let alone its implementation of dark patterns. Daly Am. Compl. ¶¶ 273, 280, 284, 292.
`
`The only claims that rely on the design of Amazon’s online cancellation process are the Oregon
`
`10
`
`and California class claims for violations of those states’ automatic renewal law claims, where
`
`11
`
`these allegations serve as supplemental bases for Amazon’s liability under those statutes and are
`
`12
`
`dependent upon Amazon’s failure to comply with ARL disclosures. Id. ¶¶ 216, 238. Judicial
`
`13
`
`economy is also not served by consolidation of the Daly case with the instant case because
`
`14
`
`Amazon did not even challenge the Daly Plaintiffs’ allegations of its use of dark patterns or
`
`15
`
`move to dismiss any claims on that basis, and indeed neither party even mentions this practice in
`
`16
`
`the briefing on that motion.
`
`17
`
`The Daly Plaintiffs, moreover, do not allege violations of Washington law, so there are
`
`18
`
`no overlapping legal claims between the two lawsuits to justify consolidation. See Ultimate
`
`19
`
`Timing, L.L.C. v. Simms, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55831, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2010)
`
`20
`
`(declining to consolidate cases proceeding respectively under Washington and Indiana laws
`
`21
`
`despite overlapping factual allegations because of the “potential for confusion if a jury were
`
`22
`
`asked to apply different substantive law to purportedly parallel agreements”). The potential for
`
`23
`
`jury confusion is amplified here because the Daly Plaintiffs seek different remedies. The instant
`
`24
`
`action seeks to recover the fees Amazon charged class members after their failed attempts to
`
`25
`
`cancel their Prime subscriptions, treble damages, and an order enjoining Amazon’s use of dark
`
`26
`
`patterns in the Amazon Prime cancellation process and ordering Amazon to simplify its
`
`27
`
`cancellation process as it has done in Europe. Compl. at ¶ 41 and Prayer for Relief. By contrast,
`
`28
`
`the Daly Plaintiffs seek to recover restitution, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 6
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`punitive damages arising from recurring charges since the inception of class members’
`
`subscriptions to 11 different services. See, e.g., Daly Am. Compl. ¶¶ 187, 208, 213, 242, 288,
`
`and Prayer for Relief.
`
`And while it is true that both the instant case and the Nicholas action allege that Amazon
`
`violated the WCPA, this does not justify consolidation because the actions challenge different
`
`conduct. “Whether an injury occurred [under the WCPA] depends on the facts” asserted.
`
`Tashiro-Townley v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85642, at *8 (W.D. Wash.
`
`June 30, 2016). The Plaintiff in the instant action and the Nicholas Plaintiff rely on different facts
`
`to support their respective WCPA claims. Unlike the instant action, the Nicholas action does not
`
`10
`
`include any allegations that members of its putative class were harmed by the Prime online
`
`11
`
`cancellation process. Rather, the Nicholas Plaintiff seeks to represent an entirely different class
`
`12
`
`of consumers who order products through Amazon’s Subscribe and Save feature on a
`
`13
`
`subscription basis and paid for products unnecessarily because dark patterns Amazon
`
`14
`
`implemented in the enrollment and online cancellation procedure for that program impeded their
`
`15
`
`cancellations. Indeed, Amazon highlighted differences between each of its subscriptions in its
`
`16
`
`motion to dismiss the Daly action, when it argued that its subscription services are so starkly
`
`17
`
`different from one another that a “context-specific analysis” of the enrollment and cancellation
`
`18
`
`processes would be necessary “for each of the subscription services that Plaintiffs challenge.”
`
`19
`
`Daly MTD at 9.
`
`20
`
`Thus, whether Amazon uses dark patterns in its online Prime cancellation procedure and
`
`21
`
`whether it harmed Prime members who sought to cancel is irrelevant to the proposed Nicholas
`
`22
`
`class, where only the Subscribe & Save cancellation is at issue, and, conversely, resolution of the
`
`23
`
`core issue in the Nicholas case has no bearing on the instant case. Because both cases rely on
`
`24
`
`entirely different facts to support their WCPA claims, judicial economy is not served by
`
`25
`
`consolidating the two cases for consideration of their WCPA claims. See Almeida, 2020 U.S.
`
`26
`
`Dist. LEXIS 64537, at *4 (declining to consolidate related cases that each alleged Fifth
`
`27
`
`Amendment Due Process violations arising from the plaintiffs’ confinement at the same facility
`
`28
`
`during the height of the COVID pandemic because the factual analysis of each claim would
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 7
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`differ from plaintiff to plaintiff); Jackson v. Berkey, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72786, at *4-5
`
`(W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2020) (declining to consolidate multiple cases filed by the same plaintiff,
`
`asserting similar violations against some of the same defendants because the alleged conduct
`
`occurred at three separate facilities and would “involve separate and distinct evidence requiring
`
`separate evaluations and analyses”). The relief sought in the Nicholas action also differs from the
`
`instant action and is a potential source of jury confusion; unlike the instant action, the Nicholas
`
`action seeks restitution and declaratory relief, and further, the Nicholas action it seeks damages
`
`and injunctive relief related solely to the Subscribe & Save program, which Plaintiff also does
`
`not seek. Nicholas Am. Compl. at Prayer for Relief.
`
`10
`
`Finally, to the extent there are overlapping facts or issues of law between the instant
`
`11
`
`action and the Nicholas and Daly actions, the Court has already eliminated the risk of
`
`12
`
`inconsistent rulings because it now presides over all three cases.
`
`13
`
`Amazon’s authorities do not support a different conclusion. Pecznick v. Amazon.com,
`
`14
`
`Inc., 2022 WL 4483123, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022), and Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`15
`
`2019 WL 2994634, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2019), are distinguishable because unlike the
`
`16
`
`cases here, the gravamen of each case sought to be consolidated alleged the same conduct and
`
`17
`
`the same legal violations. Ekin v. Amazon Services, LLC, 2014 WL 12028588, at *1 (W.D.
`
`18
`
`Wash. May 23, 2014), is distinguishable because all the parties there “agree[d] that consolidation
`
`19
`
`of the two cases [was] appropriate,” the only issue was whether to stay the second action. Gray v.
`
`20
`
`Suttell & Associates, 2010 WL 11437034 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010), is distinguishable because
`
`21
`
`the plaintiffs in the later-filed action did not object to consolidation and the court did not identify
`
`22
`
`any prejudice to the defendants, who opposed consolidation. Bedrock Masonry, Inc. v.
`
`23
`
`Innovative Construction & Design Ltd., 2020 WL 4196036, at *2 (E.D. Wash. July 21, 2020), is
`
`24
`
`similarly distinguishable because both sets of plaintiffs demonstrated the judicial efficiency of
`
`25
`
`consolidation of their actions where the parties had disclosed virtually identical witness lists.
`
`26
`
`Marlow v. Hotchkiss, 2015 WL 5254250, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2015), represented
`
`27
`
`unique circumstances absent here, where the court consolidated two related pro se actions to
`
`28
`
`eliminate the confusion that would occur if “their arguments and factual allegations” were split
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 8
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`between the two cases. And the remaining cases Amazon relies on also involve inapposite
`
`considerations, namely multiple cases filed by the same plaintiff against the same defendants,
`
`concerning similar conduct. Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc., 2013 WL 6008308, at
`
`*1 (W.D. Wash 2013); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 2018 WL 2059565, at *2 (W.D.
`
`Wash. May 3, 2018); Terwilleger v. Grays Harbor Cty., 2019 WL 2118776, at *1 (W.D. Wash
`
`May 14, 2019).
`
`B.
`
`Consolidating the claims of the separate plaintiffs’ groups into a single complaint
`creates needless confusion and prejudices the rights of the various classes asserted
`by each plaintiff group.
`
`As discussed above, each of the three actions focuses on different conduct by Amazon,
`
`10
`
`which gives rise to different theories of injury, different putative classes, and different remedies
`
`11
`
`sought. Jumbling these cases together into a single consolidated complaint not only serves no
`
`12
`
`valid purpose, but also compromises the prosecution of their cases and causes unnecessary delay.
`
`13
`
`“The risk of increased complexity at trial and jury confusion, and the prejudice to plaintiff in
`
`14
`
`litigating the cases together outweigh any economies and convenience which might be gained in
`
`15
`
`discovery or in briefing dispositive motions.” Harry & David v. ICG Am., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist.
`
`16
`
`LEXIS 92961, at *7 (D. Or. Sept. 7, 2010); id. at *4-5 (declining to consolidate trademark cases
`
`17
`
`despite “facts and legal issues common to both cases” because “each case is deeply tied to
`
`18
`
`specific facts” regarding defendant’s separate conduct). As set forth below, Amazon has “not
`
`19
`
`met [its] burden to show that consolidation would produce substantial tangible efficiencies
`
`20
`
`warranting the Court to override the Plaintiffs’ autonomy in mastering their own complaints.”
`
`21
`
`Anderson Living Tr. v. WPX Energy Production, LLC, 297 F.R.D. 622, 631 (D.N.M. 2014).
`
`22
`
`First, rather than presenting a single coherent theory of their respective cases, as each
`
`23
`
`plaintiffs’ group has seen fit, they would have to redesign their cases to fit within a single
`
`24
`
`common mold. Given the differences in factual allegations and legal theories, the resulting
`
`25
`
`complaint would be a compromise, as opposed to a deliberate presentation of their chosen claims
`
`26
`
`and theories of harm. Amazon would undoubtedly exploit any incoherence or inconsistency in
`
`27
`
`such compromise in its motion to dismiss. And because all plaintiffs’ groups will have to
`
`28
`
`respond jointly in a single 25-page opposition, they will have less freedom and space to defend
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION - 9
`FOR CONSOLIDATION
`Case No. 2:22-cv-01600
`010888-17/2127144 V1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 11 Filed 01/20/23 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`their respective theories of harm. Likewise, having to present a single consolidated motion for
`
`class certification of claims addressing different conduct and different theories of harm and
`
`different classes will not allow Plaintiffs in the related actions to make their best case for
`
`certifying their respective classes and claims. For the same reason, the plaintiffs’ groups and
`
`their respective classes risk the potential for jury confusion if they are required to proceed
`
`collectively at trial.
`
`Second, given that the related actions seek to represent different classes, it is not clear on
`
`what basis lead counsel should be appointed. This needlessly risks dissension between counsel
`
`for the plaintiffs’ groups and risks that some of the proposed classes will be overlooked in the
`
`10
`
`artificial regime that Amazon seeks to impose upon the plaintiffs’ groups. See De Coster, 2022
`
`11
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9960, at *4 (declining to consolidate cases where one plaintiffs’ group could
`
`12
`
`“be prejudiced by consolidation given the disagreements between Plaintiffs’ counsel in both
`
`13
`
`cases” and the risk that counsel in one case would “prioritize its existing allegations over those of
`
`14
`
`the case that it is attempting to consolidate with.”).
`
`15
`
`Third, each of Amazon’s requests—that counsel for the plaintiffs’ gro

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