Mbadiwe v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

Background

Tafari Mbadiwe and Rachel Miller brought this putative class action against Amazon.com, Inc. They alleged that Amazon prevented third-party sellers from offering products on competing e-commerce platforms at lower prices or on more favorable terms than on Amazon’s platform. The complaint sought damages under the antitrust laws of 29 states.

The proposed intervenors were plaintiffs in a related class action filed in the Western District of Washington. They asked to intervene in the New York case and then seek dismissal, a stay, or transfer under the first-to-file rule, which generally gives priority to the lawsuit filed first when competing lawsuits involve the same dispute. Mbadiwe and Miller opposed intervention and transfer. Amazon stated that the case should not be transferred but took no position on the proposed intervenors’ other requested relief.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) allows a person to intervene when that person has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court also considers whether the proposed intervenor has a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest, whether that interest could be impaired, and whether intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the original parties. Prejudice and undue delay are the principal considerations for permissive intervention.

Court’s analysis

Judge Broderick found that the motion was timely because it was filed about two months after the New York case began and before an answer was filed. He also found that the two cases shared factual questions because both involved Amazon and challenged the same contract provision as allegedly anticompetitive, even though the cases did not assert identical claims.

The court nevertheless found that the proposed intervenors had not shown a sufficiently substantial, legally protectable interest in the New York action. Neither case had a certified class, so any interest in protecting a proposed class was too speculative. The court also noted differences between the cases, including different claims, class periods, and class definitions. The New York plaintiffs asserted claims under the antitrust and consumer-protection laws of 29 states on behalf of purchasers from Amazon’s competitors, while the proposed intervenors asserted federal antitrust claims on behalf of direct purchasers from Amazon’s alleged co-conspirators.

Judge Broderick further determined that intervention would prejudice the original parties. The proposed intervenors sought to participate only to pursue dismissal, a stay, or transfer, and both the New York plaintiffs and Amazon opposed transfer. The court concluded that intervention for that purpose would interfere with the original parties’ right to proceed in the court they had chosen.

Disposition

The court denied the proposed intervenors’ Motion to Intervene. Because intervention was denied, the court did not reach the merits of their requests to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action.