Heck v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Background

Julia Heck originally filed the action in Humboldt County Superior Court. Amazon removed it to federal court, and Heck later filed a first amended complaint after Amazon moved to dismiss the original complaint. The amended complaint alleges that Heck agreed through her Amazon Prime account to a “No-Rush Shipping Program” under which she would receive digital credits for Amazon purchases. She alleges that, instead of providing free credits, Amazon enrolled her in Audible without her knowledge or consent.

Amazon.com, Inc. and Audible, Inc. moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and separately moved to stay discovery until the court decided the dismissal motion.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court, for good cause, to issue a protective order limiting or stopping discovery. The court explained that a stay may be appropriate when the pending motion could potentially dispose of the entire case, or the issue targeted by discovery, and the motion can be decided without additional discovery. The party seeking the stay bears a heavy burden and must show a specific need.

The court said Heck did not meaningfully address Defendants’ arguments that the amended complaint was deficient. Instead, she argued that any deficiencies could potentially be corrected through another amendment. The court found that possibility was not relevant to whether the dismissal motion was potentially case-dispositive. After a preliminary review, the court concluded that Defendants’ motion could potentially dispose of the entire case. The court also found that the motion could be resolved from the pleadings without discovery and that Heck would not be prejudiced because no scheduling order had been entered and the case-management conference had been continued.

Disposition

The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the motion to dismiss. It found that Defendants had shown that a stay was warranted and granted their motion to stay discovery until the pending motion to dismiss was resolved. The court also vacated the scheduled November 18, 2022 hearing.