Why Is Amazon Being Dismissed From Claims?
When a party believes they are wrongfully joined in a lawsuit, they can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal rule 12. It is essential to state the claim you may have against Amazon clearly and sufficiently so that the court can see that there is a clear dispute. The complaint must be written according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and must clearly state a claim. It is important to note that a motion to dismiss is different than a motion for summary judgment as it is done prior to discovery and is based solely on the pleadings.
In the cases that we have seen, Amazon is typically dismissed when they file a motion to dismiss and properly show that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them. The plaintiff must plead adequate facts to establish any harm, otherwise the case will be dismissed as it was in Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.1 When plaintiff fails to state a proper claim with facts, courts find there to be no case in controversy, such as in Brown Younger v. Lulu.com2, where a hearing revealed that Amazon never sold the product at issue nor was it ever listed on their website. Additionally, if there is an arbitration clause in an agreement with Amazon, they may have the case dismissed claiming the issue should be resolved in arbitration, such as in Nicosia v. Amazon.com Inc.3
- Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Case No. C14-0950 RSM. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, November 17, 2014.
- Brown-Younger v. Lulu.com, No. 12 C 1979, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91574 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2012).
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Case No. 14-cv-4513 (SLT) (MDG). United States District Court, E.D. New York, February 2015.
- Brown-Younger v. Lulu.com, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91574, 2012 WL 2576214 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2012).
This case involves a copyright claim in which Amazon.com Inc. was improperly joined as a defendant, and plaintiff also filed frivolous ARDC charges against Amazon attorneys. The court found that it would be unfair to allow the charges to be left uncorrected because they contained no truth and Amazon never sold the book at issue. Plaintiff was ordered to retract and withdraw her ARDC charge.
- Del Vecchio v. Amazon.com Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138314, 2011 WL 6325910 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2011).
Amazon.com was a defendant in a case filed by Del Vecchio. Del Vecchio represented a class action against Amazon seeking relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. Amazon motioned to dismiss and the court concluded that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted because the plaintiffs failed to plead adequate facts to establish any harm.
- Hard 2 Find Accessories, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160980, 2014-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,968 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2014).
This was a case involving the defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was a former Amazon seller who was removed because Apple claimed plaintiff was selling counterfeit Apple products on the Amazon platform. Apple’s motion to dismiss was granted because plaintiffs could not show that Apple’s letter demanding the cease and desist of the infringing product sales was unfounded.
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 142, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13560 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
Amazon.com is a defendant in a case brought by Dean Nicosia for the selling of a controlled substance in a weight loss supplement. Amazon.com motioned to dismiss claiming that the issue should be settled in arbitration due the arbitration clause. The court agreed and granted Amazon’s motion.
- Shive v. Amazon.Com, Inc. Cv 15-406 Jb/Wpl, United States District Court for The District of New Mexico.
This case involved a court order to show cause directing the Plaintiff, James Shive, to move the case forward. However, because Shive did not respond to the order, Amazon.com was dismissed without prejudice.
- Switzer v. Litex Indus. Case No. 11-cv-01174-REB. D. Colo., May 3, 2011.
This is a case involving patent infringement and a briefing schedule to resolve matters. The court orders that the parties shall file a joint claim construction statement of the patents at issue, limited to fifteen pages, to be filed thirty days after the statement is filed, deadlines for filing a response brief and reply shall be followed, a response brief shall be limited to twenty pages, and the parties shall convene a telephone motions hearing within ten days after the reply brief is filed to set a time for a hearing.
- Switzer v. Litex Indus. Case No. 11-cv-01174-REB. D. Colo., August 23, 2011.
This is a case involving a stipulation for dismissal of the defendant, Amazon.com. The court grants the stipulation for dismissal of Amazon.com.
- Nomura Tetsuya v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66443, 2011 WL 2472557 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2011).
Plaintiff, Joe Nomura Tetsuya sued Amazon.com for patent infringement of patent 622. Amazon.com moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court found that the complaint filed by the defendant failed to state a claim because Tetsuya failed to allege which claims of the ‘622 patent had been infringed and what Amazon products or services infringed them and how. Thus the court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss.