`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 75
`
`THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
` Case No.: 2:22-cv-01600-RSM
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO
`CONSOLIDATE
`
`
`THOMAS DOROBIALA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Please take notice that Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. has filed a motion to consolidate this
`case with two related actions: Daly, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-00910-
`RSM, and Nicholas v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01616-RSM. That motion was filed
`in the Daly action, as the first-filed action, and a copy is attached as Appendix A.
`Dated: December 28, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian D. Buckley
`
`Brian D. Buckley, WSBA No. 26423
`1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone:
`206.389.4510
`Email:
`
`bbuckley@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-01600-RSM
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 75
`Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 75
`
`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 75
`
`THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
` Case No.: 2:22-cv-00910-RSM
`
`DEFENDANTS AMAZON.COM, INC.
`AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC’S
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`February 10, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`MARK DALY, ELENA NACARINO,
`SUSAN SYLVESTER, and MICHAEL
`SONNENSCHEIN, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 75
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Daly Action .......................................................................................................2
`
`The Dorobiala Action ..............................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`The Nicholas Action ................................................................................................4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Related Cases Should Be Consolidated Because They Involve The
`Same Defendants And Overlapping Factual And Legal Issues. ..............................5
`
`Consolidation Will Promote Judicial Economy And Not Cause Delay Or
`Prejudice. .................................................................................................................8
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- i -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 75
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Bedrock Masonry, Inc. v. Innovative Constr. & Design Ltd.,
`No. 2:19-CV-375-SMJ, 2020 WL 4196036 (E.D. Wash. July 21, 2020) ..............................5, 6
`
`Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc.,
`No. C10-861 RSM, 2013 WL 6008308 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2013) ......................................9
`
`Dorobiala v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-01600- RSM ................................................................................................ passim
`
`Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC,
`No. C14-0244-JCC, 2014 WL 12028588 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2014) ...............................8, 9
`
`Gray v. Suttell & Associates,
`No. CV-09-251-EFS, 2010 WL 11437034 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010) ..............................6, 9
`
`Inv’rs Rsch. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. Dist.,
`877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Marlow v. Hotchkiss,
`No. 2:15-CV-0131-TOR, 2015 WL 5254250 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2015) ................................9
`
`Nicholas v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-01616-RSM ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00743-TL, 2022 WL 4483123 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022) ...............................5
`
`Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C16-1554-JCC, 2019 WL 2994634 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2019) ....................................5, 8
`
`Terwilleger v. Grays Harbor Cty.,
`No. 3:19-cv-5215-RBL-JRC, 2019 WL 2118776 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2019) ...............5, 8, 9
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. C17-1558JLR, 2018 WL 2059565 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2018) .........................................9
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`815 ILCS 505/10a(e) ........................................................................................................................7
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 ......................................................................................................7
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 ......................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 .........................................................................................................................1, 5
`
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- ii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 75
`
`
`
`Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638 ...................................................................................................................7
`
`RCW § 4.16.080 ..............................................................................................................................7
`
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- iii -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 7 of 75
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and
`Amazon.com Services LLC respectfully request that the Court consolidate this action with two
`related actions recently filed in this District and re-assigned to this Court: Dorobiala v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01600-RSM, and Nicholas v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`01616-RSM (collectively, all three cases are the “Related Actions”).
`The plaintiffs in the Related Actions hope to leverage recent Federal Trade Commission
`commentary and popular media coverage regarding so-called “dark patterns,” i.e., online practices
`designed to deceive or “trick” consumers into taking actions they do not intend. In each of the
`Related Actions, the plaintiffs accuse Amazon of using “dark patterns” to make it confusing and
`difficult to cancel automatically renewing subscriptions for Amazon services. In this case,
`Plaintiffs allege that Amazon uses “dark patterns” to lure customers into signing up for numerous
`Amazon subscription services—including Amazon Prime, Amazon’s flagship membership
`service—and then makes it difficult and confusing to cancel those services. Just as in this case,
`the plaintiff in Dorobiala accuses Amazon of using “dark patterns” to make it confusing and
`difficult to cancel Amazon Prime. And in Nicholas, the plaintiff makes nearly identical allegations
`that Amazon employs “dark patterns” to frustrate customer attempts to cancel another Amazon
`subscription service. Thus, the alleged wrongdoing in this case entirely encompasses the conduct
`at issue in Dorobiala, and it overlaps extensively with Nicholas as well. In each case, the plaintiffs
`also assert claims for violations of the same or similar state consumer protection laws, and they
`assert the same or similar common law claims. And the Related Actions all propose similar
`nationwide classes—with the proposed nationwide class in this case including all members of the
`proposed classes in Dorobiala.
`If the Related Actions survive past motions to dismiss, they will undoubtedly involve
`similar—and often overlapping—discovery issues. Without consolidation, Amazon would need
`to negotiate the scope of discovery with three sets of plaintiffs’ counsel, respond to multiple sets
`of discovery on the same or similar issues, and produce many of the same witnesses for multiple
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 8 of 75
`
`
`
`depositions. And Amazon (and the Court) would also face multiple rounds of briefing on the same
`or highly similar class certification and summary judgment issues.
`In contrast, the plaintiffs would face no prejudice from consolidating the Related Actions,
`which are in their early stages and in a similar procedural posture. Amazon has not filed an answer
`in any Related Action and there has been no discovery. Although Amazon’s motion to dismiss is
`fully briefed in this case, Amazon intends to challenge the Nicholas and Dorobiala claims as well,
`which would be far more efficient as a single motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint.
`Given the clear and substantial overlap in law and fact between these Related Actions, and
`in the interests of judicial and litigant economy, Amazon requests that the Court consolidate the
`Related Actions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Daly Action
`On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Daly, Nacarino, Sylvester, and Sonnenschein filed this
`putative class action challenging Amazon’s consent and cancellation practices with respect to
`twelve subscription services. This includes Amazon Prime, a membership program that offers a
`host of benefits for an annual fee, as well as Kindle Unlimited, Amazon Music Unlimited, Amazon
`Prime Video Channels, Amazon Prime Video, Amazon Prime Book Box, Amazon Kids+, Audible,
`ComiXology Unlimited, Amazon Subscription Boxes, Blink for Home, and Amazon Photos. See
`Dkt. 1 (Complaint). On August 31, 2022, Amazon moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint.
`Dkt. 12. On September 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 14 (the
`“Daly FAC”). In the Daly FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Amazon engages in an illegal automatic-
`renewal “scheme” by “luring consumers into enrolling” in various Amazon subscription services
`and then making it “exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel
`their Amazon Subscriptions.” See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 1, 7, 26. Plaintiffs allege that Amazon does so
`through the use of so-called “dark pattern” tactics. Id. ¶¶ 26–33. Plaintiffs also claim specifically
`that they have been injured by Amazon’s cancellation practices, including by paying subscription
`fees after attempting to cancel. E.g., id. ¶¶ 130–131, 149–151. Plaintiff Nacarino, for example,
`alleges that she attempted unsuccessfully to cancel her Amazon Prime membership. Id. ¶ 134.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 7 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 9 of 75
`
`
`
`Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of California’s and Oregon’s
`consumer protection and unfair competition laws, conversion, unjust enrichment, negligent
`misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf a nationwide class
`of “[a]ll persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, up to
`and including the date of final judgment in this action, incurred fee(s) in connection with
`Defendants’ Amazon Subscription offerings,” as well as Oregon and California classes and
`subclasses. Id. ¶ 183.
`On October 14, 2022, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. See Dkt. 20. As of
`November 18, 2022, that motion is fully briefed.
`Counsel for Amazon and counsel for Plaintiffs conferred before Amazon filed this motion,
`and Plaintiffs oppose consolidation. See Declaration of Brian D. Buckley in support of Motion to
`Consolidate (“Buckley Decl.”) ¶ 2.
`II.
`The Dorobiala Action
`On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff Thomas Dorobiala filed a putative class action against
`Amazon challenging its cancellation practices with respect to Amazon Prime. See Dorobiala v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00910-RSM. Just as in this case, Dorobiala alleges that
`Amazon uses “dark patterns” to make it difficult for Prime members to cancel their subscriptions.
`Buckley Decl. Ex. B (Dorobiala Complaint) ¶¶ 5–6. Dorobiala claims that that he tried to cancel
`his Amazon Prime membership online but “became confused by the process and couldn’t cancel.”
`Id. ¶ 28. Like Plaintiff Nacarino in this case, Dorobiala alleges that he was injured by Amazon’s
`cancellation practices, including by continuing to pay the Prime subscription fee after he had
`decided to cancel his membership. Id. ¶ 56. Based on those familiar allegations (which track those
`in this case), Dorobiala asserts a single cause of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
`Protection Act (“WCPA”). See id. ¶¶ 50–58. Dorobiala purports to bring this claim on behalf of
`a nationwide class of “[a]ll persons who enrolled in Amazon Prime in the United States and
`attempted on or after November 9, 2018, to cancel their Prime membership online by clicking at
`least two pages in the cancellation process and who incurred a membership fee after failing to
`cancel their membership for that period, for which Amazon did not reimburse them.” Id. ¶ 41.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 8 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 10 of 75
`
`
`
`Counsel for Amazon and counsel for plaintiff Dorobiala conferred before Amazon filed
`this Motion, and Dorobiala opposes consolidation. Buckley Decl. ¶ 4.
`III. The Nicholas Action
`On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Alexandria Nicholas filed a putative class action complaint
`in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Similar to the claims here and in Dorobiala, plaintiff
`Nicholas challenges Amazon’s cancellation practices with respect to Amazon’s Subscribe & Save
`(S&S”) subscription program. On September 26, 2022, Amazon removed that case to the U.S.
`District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 10, 2022, pursuant to a
`stipulation between the parties, the case was transferred to this District under Case No. 2:22-cv-
`01616-TL. On November 14, 2022, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the initial complaint. See
`Nicholas Dkt. 22. On December 5, 2022, in response, Nicholas filed her first amended complaint.
`Buckley Decl. Ex. A (the “Nicholas FAC”).
`In the Nicholas FAC, Nicholas claims that Amazon’s S&S is deceptively designed using
`“dark patterns” to induce consumers to sign up for a subscription service that automatically renews
`but is difficult and confusing to cancel. Id. ¶¶ 1–4, 16–31. Nicholas challenges the enrollment
`process for S&S. See id. ¶¶ 17–30. She also challenges the cancellation process, which Nicholas
`alleges is “overly difficult and time-consuming;” she contends that the “labyrinth of menus and
`icons” are designed to frustrate and ultimately thwart a consumer’s decision to cancel her S&S
`subscription. See id. ¶¶ 32–36. Plaintiff Nicholas claims that she was injured by Amazon’s
`enrollment and cancellation practices, including by paying S&S subscription fees after attempting
`to cancel. Id. ¶¶ 37–40. Based on these allegations, Nicholas asserts statutory claims for violations
`of the WCPA, the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act (“IACRA”), and the Illinois Consumer
`Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), and common law claims for fraud and
`unjust enrichment. She purports to bring these claims on behalf of “[a]ll individuals who, during
`the applicable limitations period, attempted to cancel a Subscribe & Save subscription online by
`clicking at least two pages in the cancellation process, and who were subsequently charged for one
`or more purchases in connection with Defendant’s Subscribe & Save program,” and a subclass
`consisting only of those class members whose purchases were made in Illinois. Id. ¶ 43.
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 9 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 11 of 75
`
`
`
`Counsel for Amazon and counsel for plaintiff Nicholas conferred before Amazon filed this
`Motion, and Nicholas opposes consolidation. Buckley Decl. ¶ 3.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Rule 42(a), “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact,
`the court may … consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). A court has “broad discretion
`under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Inv’rs Rsch. Co. v. United States
`Dist. Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Once a court identifies a common
`question of law or fact, it generally weighs “the savings of time and effort consolidation will
`produce against any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result.” Rittmann v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. C16-1554-JCC, 2019 WL 2994634, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2019); see
`also Bedrock Masonry, Inc. v. Innovative Constr. & Design Ltd., No. 2:19-CV-375-SMJ, 2020
`WL 4196036 (E.D. Wash. July 21, 2020).
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The Related Cases Should Be Consolidated Because They Involve The Same
`Defendants And Overlapping Factual And Legal Issues.
`
`Consolidation under Rule 42 “requires simply ‘a common question of law or fact’ and not
`that common legal and factual questions predominate.” Terwilleger v. Grays Harbor Cty., No.
`3:19-cv-5215 RBL-JRC, 2019 WL 2118776, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2019); Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
`42(a). In other words, consolidation is appropriate even where the cases share only a single issue
`of fact or law. See Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00743-TL, 2022 WL 4483123, at
`*3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022) (emphasizing that Rule 42(a) authorizes consolidation of cases
`that “involve a common question of fact or law or fact”) (emphasis in original).
`Courts routinely consolidate cases with similar claims based on similar facts to preserve
`judicial resources, especially where those claims involve a single defendant. In Pecznick, Judge
`Lin consolidated two cases that were “against the same defendant, ha[d] similar plaintiffs,
`center[ed] around the same core fact,” and had one legal theory in common. 2022 WL 4483123,
`at *3. Despite the presence of some non-overlapping allegations and claims, Judge Lin held that
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 10 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 12 of 75
`
`
`
`consolidation “would further judicial economy” and “expedite [the cases’] resolution by avoiding
`duplicative discovery.” Id. at *4.
`Indeed, consolidation is preferred even where the cases have important factual distinctions.
`In Gray v. Suttell & Associates, No. CV-09-251-EFS, 2010 WL 11437034 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29,
`2010), the court consolidated two actions because the defendants’ “debt-collecting system
`underlie[s] all claims.” Id. at *2. The court did so even though the cases challenged different
`aspects of defendants’ debt-collection practices, and there was “overlap” in the proposed classes
`but they were “not identically defined.” Id. Notably, unlike here, the cases were “in two different
`stages of litigation,” with one case having fully briefed class certification and summary judgment
`motions, while the other was still in its infancy. Id. Those differences notwithstanding, the Gray
`court reasoned that consolidation would “result in considerable savings to the judicial system:
`litigating the suits separately could result in unnecessary discovery duplication and inconsistent
`determinations of the same factual and legal issues.” Id. Similarly, in Bedrock Masonry, Inc. v.
`Innovative Constr. & Design Ltd., No. 2:19-CV-429-RMP, 2020 WL 4196036 (E.D. Wash. July
`21, 2020), the court consolidated two contract disputes despite the “distinct factual determinations
`that may have to be made regarding [the two plaintiffs’] and their respective relationships” because
`consolidation would nonetheless “result in reduced costs and increased efficiencies.” Id. at *2.
`Here, each of the Related Actions alleges that Amazon uses “dark patterns” to make it
`confusing and difficult to cancel subscription services. This action and Dorobiala involve the
`identical service—Amazon Prime—and Nicholas involves overlapping factual and legal issues
`with respect to another Amazon subscription service. All of the plaintiffs in the Related Actions
`claim that Amazon uses dark patterns to induce consumers to sign up for or continue auto-renewing
`subscriptions, while making it unnecessarily difficult or confusing to cancel those services. In
`each of the Related Actions, plaintiffs claim to have suffered some harm as a result of Amazon’s
`allegedly confusing cancellation practices, including by incurring charges after trying to cancel a
`service. And all assert similar, and in some cases identical, claims under state consumer protection
`laws, including Washington, California, Oregon, and Illinois auto-renewal and consumer
`protection statutes, as well as common-law claims for fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 11 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 13 of 75
`
`
`
`enrichment. In short, despite some differences, there will be substantial overlap in the legal and
`factual inquiries across the Related Cases.
`The plaintiffs in the Related Actions also seek to represent substantially the same classes
`of consumers. The proposed nationwide class in this case, which comprises all persons who
`incurred fees in connection with Amazon Prime, entirely encompasses all class members in
`Dorobiala. And the proposed nationwide classes in Nicholas and Dorobiala are virtually identical
`except for the subscription service at issue:
`
`Daly
`
`Dorobiala
`
`Nicholas
`
`All persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of
`limitations periods, up to and including the date of final judgment in
`this action, incurred fee(s) in connection with Defendants’ Amazon
`Subscription offerings. Daly FAC ¶ 183 (emphases added).
`
`All persons who enrolled in Amazon Prime in the United States and
`attempted on or after November 9, 2018, to cancel their Prime
`membership online by clicking at least two pages in the cancellation
`process and who incurred a membership fee after failing to cancel
`their membership for that period, for which Amazon did not
`reimburse them. Buckley Decl. Ex. B (Dorobiala Compl.) ¶ 41
`(emphases added).
`
`All individuals who, during the applicable limitations period,
`attempted to cancel a Subscribe & Save subscription online by
`clicking at least two pages in the cancellation process, and who were
`subsequently charged for one or more purchases in connection with
`Defendant’s Subscribe & Save program. Id. Ex. A (Nicholas FAC
`¶ 43) (emphases added).
`
`All three Related Actions also purport to cover effectively the same time period, from 2018 to the
`present.1 In short, Plaintiffs seek to act on behalf of the same Amazon consumers who (the
`plaintiffs contend) were harmed in essentially the same ways.
`
`
`1 Dorobiala expressly asserts claims on behalf of a class of people who attempted to cancel their Prime memberships
`on or after November 19, 2018. See Buckley Decl. Ex. B (Dorobiala Compl.) ¶ 41. Daly and Nicholas assert several
`claims on behalf of a putative class of people who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, incurred
`“unauthorized” subscription fees. See Daly FAC ¶ 9; Buckley Decl. Ex. A (Nicholas FAC) ¶ 41. The statute of
`limitations periods for the claims in those cases range from one to four years, so the relevant time period is 2018–
`2022. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four years for UCL); Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638 (UTPA’s statute of
`limitations is one year after discovery); RCW § 4.16.080 (three years for conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment
`and negligent misrepresentation claims that sound in fraud); Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 (three years for CLRA); 815 ILCS
`505/10a(e) (three years for ICFA).
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 12 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 14 of 75
`
`
`
`If the Related Actions survive past the pleading stage, they will very involve similar, often
`overlapping discovery issues. Without a consolidated, coordinated pretrial process, Amazon is
`likely to be subject to parallel but not identical discovery, which will, among other things, require
`Amazon to negotiate the scope of discovery with three sets of plaintiffs’ counsel, produce some of
`the same witnesses for multiple depositions, respond to multiple sets of written discovery on the
`same or similar issues, and produce duplicative documents and data. It would be more efficient
`and far less burdensome—for both Amazon and the Court—to have a unified discovery process
`that covers the overlapping issues.
`Moreover, if the Related Actions survive dismissal but proceed without consolidation, the
`Court must separately decide in three cases whether the plaintiffs’ proposed classes can be certified
`under Rule 23. See Ekin v. Amazon Servs., LLC, No. C14-0244-JCC, 2014 WL 12028588, at *2
`(W.D. Wash. May 23, 2014) (granting consolidation where “the proposed classes include the same
`putative class members”). And summary judgment motions in the Related Actions would similarly
`require separate sets of briefs on whether Amazon’s cancellation practices are unfair or deceptive
`under the same or similar laws.
`As in the cases cited above, the significant overlap in questions of law and fact across the
`Related Actions weighs heavily in favor of consolidation.
`II.
`Consolidation Will Promote Judicial Economy And Not Cause Delay Or Prejudice.
`Consolidating the Related Actions would not result in delay, inconvenience, or prejudice.
`See Rittmann, 2019 WL 2994634, at *1–2. The Related Actions are all in their nascent stages and
`in a similar procedural posture. Amazon has not filed an answer in any Related Action. This case
`is only slightly farther along because Amazon’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed, but the Court
`has not ruled on the motion and there has been no discovery. Nicholas and Dorobiala are just now
`getting started. Amazon similarly intends to challenge the claims in those cases under Rule 12 but
`has not yet filed those motions—which could instead be addressed with a single motion to dismiss
`a consolidated amended complaint.
`Consolidation now is “preferable to consolidating at a later stage, as it will serve to avoid
`duplicative motions practice and discovery.” Terwilleger, 2019 WL 2118776, at *2. Without
`
`AMAZON’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`CASE NO.: 2:22-CV-00910-RSM
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 SECOND AVENUE, 10TH FLOOR
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
`
`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-00910-RSM Document 25 Filed 12/28/22 Page 13 of 14Case 2:22-cv-01600-RSM Document 8 Filed 12/28/22 Page 15 of 75
`
`
`
`consolidation, Amazon will be prejudiced by “the undue burden associated with defending itself
`against the same claims in separate lawsuits brought by competing plaintiffs’ counsel.” Ekin, 2014
`WL 12028588, at *2. Consolidation will also reduce confusion by “prevent[ing] any possibility
`of inconsistent rulings.” Id.
`The most efficient course is for the Court to consolidate the Related Actions and order lead
`counsel to file a “consolidated amended complaint [that] will act as a complete replacement for
`the original complaints.” Terwilleger, 2019 WL 2118776, at *2. Amazon could then respond to
`a single, unified action. That would also promote judicial efficiency by avoiding this Court being
`required to preside over substantially similar claims and discovery processes in parallel. See Gray,
`2010 WL 11437034, at *2. And if the case were to proceed to trial, a single consolidated case
`would be far more efficient. See, e.g., Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc., No. C10-861
`RSM, 2013 WL 6008308, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2013) (“Judicial economy is undoubtedly
`advanced by consolidating these related actions into a single trial and moving them both toward
`resolution of a long-protracted dispute.”).
`Finally, consolidation will not prejudice any party. While plaintiffs in the Related Actions
`oppose consolidation (see Buckley Decl. ¶¶ 2-4), no plaintiff has articulated any plausible risk of
`prejudice. Nor can they. Given the early stage of each of the Related Actions, and the plainly
`overlapping nature of the claims, there is no basis to argue that any party could plausibly be
`prejudiced by consolidation. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., No. C17-1558JLR, 2018 WL
`2059565, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2018) (finding no discernible prejudice to any plaintiff
`“because none of the four cases have progressed beyond Rule 12(b) motions or answers to the
`complaints.”). To the contrary, consolidation will ensure consis