History
  • No items yet
midpage
2:25-cv-00252
W.D. Wash.
Apr 14, 2025

MARIA ALBANO, TERRENCE BOYD, CLARINDA BYRD, TRAVIS CLEVINGER, TAMMIE GREEN, MAYHUGH HORNE, MELISSA JARAMILLO, KEITH JOHNSON, DAVID KAPLAN, DANIEL KILGO, CURSILA LONGORIA, LUIS RAMOS, ADRIEN RODRIGUEZ, GILBERTO ROMAGNOLO, BRENDA SHALEY, ROBERT SMITH, ROBERT TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON ADVERTISING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,; CASSAUNDRA MAXWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON ADVERTISING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

No. 2:25-cv-00252-BJR; No. 2:25-cv-00261-BJR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

April 14, 2025

The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND EXTEND DEADLINES AND ORDER

Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases and Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Advertising, LLC stipulate as follows:

  1. On February 7, 2025, Plaintiffs Maria Albano, Terrence Boyd, Clarinda Byrd, Travis Clevinger, Tammie Green, Mayhugh Horne, Melissa Jaramillo, Keith Johnson, David Kaplan, Daniel Kilgo, Cursila Longoria, Luis Ramos, Adrien Rodriguez, Gilberto Romagnolo, Brenda Shaley, Robert Smith, and Robert Taylor filed their complaint against Defendants. Albano v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2:25-cv-00252-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 1. Days later, on February 10, 2025, Plaintiff Cassaundra Maxwell filed her complaint against the same two Defendants raising similar allegations. Maxwell v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2:25-cv-00261-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 1.
  2. The Albano and Maxwell actions (the “Related Cases”) have both been assigned to The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein.
  3. On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Maxwell filed a Notice of Related Cases identifying the Albano action. Maxwell, 2:25-cv-00261-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 4.
  4. Plaintiffs in the Related Cases have held discussions regarding consolidation.
  5. Consolidation of the Related Cases is appropriate because Plaintiffs agree that the Related Cases are based on the same subject matter, arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, assert similar causes of action, define similar and overlapping classes, allege similar wrongful conduct, and seek similar remedies. Further, similar discovery and class certification issues will be relevant to the Related Cases. As a result, consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. See, e.g., In re Valve Antitrust Litig., 2024 WL 5009034, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2024) (ruling that “given the sole defendant and overlapping factual and legal issues, consolidation will promote judicial economy, ensure consistent results, and streamline matters overall”); Burton-Curl v. Seattle Coll. Dist. S. Campus, 2023 WL 3004063, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2023) (“In determining whether consolidation is warranted, courts evaluate the existence of common questions of law or fact and weigh the interests of judicial economy against any delay or prejudice that might result.”). See also Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting district courts’ broad discretion to consolidate actions).
  6. Following consolidation, Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Related Cases intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
  7. Accordingly, the Parties agree that rather than responding to each Complaint in the Related Cases, Defendants should respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint, once filed.

As a result, the Parties jointly move the Court for an Order as follows:

  • The above captioned actions shall be consolidated as In re Amazon Ads SDK Litigation, No. 2:25-cv-00252-BJR (W.D. Wash);
  • Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before June 30, 2025;
  • Defendants will respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint within 45 days after the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint;
  • If Defendants respond by way of motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss within 45 days of the motion; Defendants shall have 21 days to file a reply.

DATED: April 14, 2025

COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP

By: /s/ Thomas E. Loeser
Thomas E. Loeser, WSBA #38701
/s/ Karin B. Swope
Karin B. Swope, WSBA #24015
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206)-802-1272
Facsimile: (206)-299-4184
tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Maria Albano, Terrence Boyd, Clarinda Byrd, Travis Clevinger, Tammie Green, Mayhugh Horne, Melissa Jaramillo, Keith Johnson, David Kaplan, Daniel Kilgo, Cursila Longoria, Luis Ramos, Adrien Rodriguez, Gilberto Romagnolo, Brenda Shaley, Robert Smith, and Robert Taylor

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser
Derek W. Loeser, WSBA #24274
/s/ Cari Campen Laufenberg
Cari Campen Laufenberg, WSBA #34354
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

/s/ Christopher L. Springer
Christopher L. Springer (Pro Hac Vice)
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cassaundra Maxwell

PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Ryan Spear
Ryan Spear, WSBA #39974
/s/ Nicola Menaldo
Nicola Menaldo, WSBA #44459
/s/ Erin K. Earl
Erin K. Earl, WSBA #49341
/s/ Jordan C. Harris
Jordan C. Harris, WSBA #55499
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Fax: (206) 359-9000
Email: rspear@perkinscoie.com
Email: nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com
Email: eearl@perkinscoie.com
Email: jordanharris@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Advertising, LLC

ORDER

Having reviewed the Parties’ stipulation, and finding good cause exists for the requested relief, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulation and establishes the following schedule:

  1. The above captioned actions shall be consolidated as In re Amazon Ads SDK Litigation, No. 2:25-cv-00252-BJR (W.D. Wash);
  2. Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before June 30, 2025;
  3. Defendants will respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint within 45 days after the filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint;
  4. If Defendants respond by way of motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss within 45 days of the motion; Defendant shall have 21 days to file a reply.

The Clerk of the Court is hereby notified of this consolidation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2025.

Barbara J. Rothstein

THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case Details

Case Name: In re Amazon Ads SDK Litigation
Court Name: District Court, W.D. Washington
Date Published: Apr 14, 2025
Citation: 2:25-cv-00252
Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00252
Court Abbreviation: W.D. Wash.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In