Hamilton v. Amazon.com Services LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 22-cv-00434-PAB
DAN HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Ruling on
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 28]. Plaintiff responded, Docket No. 32,
and defendant replied. Docket No. 36.
On March 3, 2022, defendant Amazon Services, LLC filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s individual and class action complaint [Docket No. 15]. On April 14, plaintiff
filed a Motion to Certify Class Action [Docket No. 26] and a Motion for Order Certifying
a Determinative Question of Colorado Law to the Colorado Supreme Court [Docket No.
27]. Defendant now moves to stay briefing on plaintiff’s class certification motion
pending the resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Docket No. 35. Plaintiff
opposes a stay of briefing on his motion. See Docket No. 39.
It is well established that a court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
(1997). However, the Tenth Circuit has cautioned that “the right to proceed in court
should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 05/31/22 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th
Cir. 1983). Stays of proceedings, discovery, or briefing are generally disfavored. See
Bank of Colorado v. Wibaux 1, LLC, No. 17-CV-02871-CMA-KMT, 2018 WL 2562662,
at *3 (D. Colo. June 4, 2018) (considering a stay on briefing of a summary judgment
motion). A stay may, however, be appropriate in certain circumstances. In determining
whether to grant or deny a stay, courts in this district consider the following factors (the
“String Cheese Incident factors”): “(1) plaintiff’s interests in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil action and the potential prejudice to plaintif f of a delay; (2) the burden on
the defendants; (3) the convenience to the court; (4) the interests of persons not parties
to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus
Shows, Inc., No. 05-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006).
Defendant argues briefing should be stayed because responding to plaintiff’s
motion for class certification would cause a substantial burden for defendant. Docket
No. 35 at 4. Additionally, defendant argues plaintiff is not prejudiced since the effect of
plaintiff’s motion to certify an issue to the Colorado Supreme Court would be to stay the
case. Id.; see Docket No. 39 at 6. Plaintiff responds that a stay of the briefing would
prejudice class members and that this case is not the type of case that warrants a stay.
Docket No. 39 at 4-5.
Regarding the first String Cheese Incident factor, plaintiff argues potential class
members will be prejudiced by a stay on briefing because a delay in certifying a class
will make it harder to locate all the class members and provide notice to them. Id. at 5.
Defendant responds that any prejudice to plaintiff is minimal since notice to potential
2
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 05/31/22 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

class members could be sent after a ruling on the motion to dismiss to lessen the
burden on defendant. Docket No. 41 at 2; see Docket No 39 at 5-6. Additionally,
defendant argues that plaintiff’s prejudice claim is undercut by plaintiff’s filing of a
motion to certify a question to the Colorado Supreme Court which plaintiff admits would
stay the entire case. Docket No. 35 at 4; see Docket No. 39 at 6. The Court finds this
factor weighs in favor of a stay of briefing given that any prejudice to plaintiff is minimal
and, in any event, his own motion to certify a question to the Colorado Supreme Court
would involve a comparable delay.
On the second factor, defendant argues that the burden of having to brief the
motion for class certification before the Court rules on its motion to dismiss is “not
insubstantial.” Docket No. 35 at 4. Ordinary burdens associated with litigating a case
do not constitute undue burden. See Collins v. Ace Mortgage Funding, LLC,
08–cv–1709–REB–KLM, 2008 W L 4457850, at *1 (D.Colo. Oct. 1, 2008). Def endant
provides no reason why the briefing to the motion for class certification is more onerous
than the normal briefing on such a motion, outside of stating this case is not ordinary
because plaintiff has filed a motion that could result in a stay of proceedings. Docket
No. 35 at 4. The Court finds this factor weighs against a stay of briefing.
On the third factor, plaintiff argues that judicial economy could be served by
ruling on the motion to dismiss and motion for class certification at the same time,
which can only be accomplished if both are briefed. Docket No. 39 at 5. Defendant
argues judicial economy is best served by ruling on dispositive motions and cites in
support Kerber v. Qwest Grp. Life Ins. Plan, No. 07-CV-00644-WDM-CBS, 2009 WL
798569 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2009). Docket No. 35 at 4. In that case, the court
3
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 05/31/22 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

acknowledged that a motion for class certification should be decided as soon as
practicable based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and stated that, while it should not usually be
the case, sometimes a dispositive motion can be prioritized. Kerber, 2009 WL 798569
at *1. The court ruled that judicial economy was best served by ruling on dispositive
motions before class certification because of the “various classes and subclasses”
plaintiff sought to certify. Id. Here, plaintiff does not seek to certify subclasses. See
Docket No. 26 at 15. Defendant provides no other reason judicial economy would be
served by deciding the motion to dismiss before briefing the motion for class
certification. See Docket No. 35 at 4. The Court finds this factor weighs against a stay.
Neither party addresses the public interest in a stay. The Court finds that the
public interest is best served by having both the motion to dismiss and the motion for
class certification briefed at the same time, which will be more expeditious. The Court
finds this factor weighs against a stay of briefing.
Weighing all the String Cheese factors and considering the disfavored nature of
stays, the Court finds that a stay in this case is not warranted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Certify Class Action Pending Disposition of its Motion to Dismiss and for Expedited
Briefing Schedule [Docket No. 35] is DENIED. It is further
4
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 05/31/22 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

ORDERED that defendant’s response to plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class Action
[Docket No. 26] is due June 9, 2022.
DATED May 31, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
5
Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 05/31/22 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5