Marcelo v. Amazon.com,Inc.

Background

Sixteen individuals from California agreed to deliver packages for Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc. through the Amazon Flex smartphone app. They alleged that Amazon misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees and asserted twelve federal and California labor-law claims.

The case was one of several lawsuits involving alleged misclassification of Amazon Flex delivery drivers. An earlier lawsuit, Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., had been filed in the Western District of Washington and involved similar claims against Amazon, including claims concerning California delivery drivers. The court noted that the earlier case had ongoing class-certification proceedings and that Amazon’s renewed request to require arbitration was under submission there.

Amazon’s Motion

Amazon asked the court to require arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Alternatively, Amazon asked the court to transfer, dismiss, or stay the case under the first-to-file rule. That rule allows a court to transfer, dismiss, or pause a later-filed case when an earlier case in another federal district involves substantially similar parties and issues.

Transfer Analysis

The court evaluated the timing of the lawsuits, the similarity of the parties, and the similarity of the issues, along with overall fairness and efficiency. It found that the earlier lawsuit was filed well before this one, involved the same defendants, and concerned the same basic theory that Amazon misclassified delivery drivers. The court also found that the plaintiffs in this case were members of the earlier lawsuit’s proposed California class.

The plaintiffs argued that the cases differed because the earlier lawsuit did not seek recovery for unlawful deductions, while this case did, and because the earlier lawsuit sought sick-leave recovery, while this case did not. The court said the issues did not need to be identical, only substantially similar. The plaintiffs also argued that the parties were not similar because the earlier lawsuit was a class action while this case was an individual action. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the rule requires substantial similarity, not exact identity. It noted that the plaintiffs could opt out of the proposed class if they chose.

Ruling

The court ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Washington under the first-to-file rule. It also stated that the same result would be readily reached under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal venue-transfer statute concerning convenience and the interests of justice. The order did not decide whether the claims had to be arbitrated or whether the plaintiffs’ labor-law claims were legally valid.