Amazon.com, Inc. v. Otabek Tillyaev and U.Z. Freight Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-01753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ouattara v. Amazon.com, Judge Rochon denied Amazon defendants’ requests for guidance on removing and consolidating a state-court action.
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, whose requests were denied; the related state-court action was not before the federal court.
What happened
In Badara Ouattara v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, the defendants filed a letter asking how to remove a related state-court case and potentially combine it with this federal case.
The court said that request sought advice about a dispute and parties not before the court. It also noted that the state-court case had not been removed and therefore was not before the federal court for possible consolidation.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request for guidance and denied the request to consolidate the cases. She directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Amazon.com, Inc. v. Otabek Tillyaev and U.Z. Freight Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01753
- Rochon
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a letter characterized as a motion to consolidate this federal case with a related state-court proceeding. They asked the court for guidance about how to remove the state-court action in anticipation of seeking consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).
Court’s analysis
The court treated the request for guidance as seeking an advisory opinion—an answer about a dispute that was not properly before the court. The court stated that federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions. The court also explained that Rule 42(a) allows consolidation only when the cases are before the court and involve a common question of law or fact. Because the state-court action had not been removed, it was not before this court.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the defendants’ request for guidance about removing the state-court action and denied their request for consolidation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 27.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.