In Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00351
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Amazon eBook Antitrust Litigation: Judge Woods said an antitrust-standing discussion was not necessary to the ruling and invited Amazon to clarify its request.
Amazon.com, Inc. and the direct purchaser plaintiffs in the antitrust litigation.
What happened
In In Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Amazon asked the court to reconsider its March 2, 2024 order and, alternatively, allow an immediate appeal before final judgment. That earlier order adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss in relevant part.
Amazon challenged the court’s discussion of antitrust standing, including whether the claims were closely connected to the alleged injury and whether the court had applied the required first step. The court clarified that the discussion about the closely connected claims was not necessary to its ruling. The court’s decision instead rested on its conclusion that the direct purchaser plaintiffs had adequately alleged an antitrust injury.
Judge Gregory H. Woods did not decide Amazon’s reconsideration or appeal requests in this order. He invited Amazon to clarify whether it still sought review of that discussion, and set deadlines for Amazon’s letter and the plaintiffs’ response and reply.
The detailed version
- In Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:21-cv-00351
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
Amazon moved for reconsideration of the Court’s March 2, 2024 order adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. That earlier order denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss in relevant part. Amazon also asked, in the alternative, for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the district court case is finished.
Issues and clarification
Amazon identified two issues: the court’s analysis of the “inextricably intertwined” doctrine of antitrust standing discussed in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, and the alleged failure to apply the “first step” rule of antitrust standing. The court explained that it had discussed the doctrine only to respond to Amazon’s objection that the report and recommendation did not cite that case.
The court stated that this discussion was dicta—a statement not necessary to the decision. The court said its adoption of the report and recommendation and its denial of Amazon’s motion to dismiss in relevant part did not rely on that analysis. Instead, the relevant conclusion was that the direct purchaser plaintiffs had adequately pleaded an antitrust injury. The opinion states that Amazon did not refute that fundamental point or the court’s adoption of the report and recommendation’s antitrust-injury analysis.
What the court did
The court did not grant or deny Amazon’s motion for reconsideration or its alternative request for an interlocutory appeal in this order. It invited Amazon to clarify the scope of its request, including whether Amazon would continue seeking reconsideration or an interlocutory appeal concerning the “inextricably intertwined” analysis. The court set March 22, 2024, for Amazon’s letter; April 5, 2024, for the plaintiffs’ response; and April 12, 2024, for Amazon’s reply, if any. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on March 20, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.