Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Zappos, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

September 27, 2012, Decided; September 27, 2012, Filed

3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC; MDL No. 2357; 3:12-cv-00072-RCJ-WGC; 2:12-cv-00182-RCJ-VCF; 2:12-cv-00232-RCJ-VCF; 3:12-cv-00337-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00338-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00339-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00340-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00341-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00355-RCJ-VPC; 3:12-cv-00392-RCJ-VPC (Member Cases)


 [*1060]  Order

This Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceeding arises out of a security breach of servers belong to Defendants, Inc. ("Amazon") 1, doing business  [*1061]  as, and, Inc. ("Zappos") in January 2012. Now pending is Defendant Zappos' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay action (#3).

I. Relevant  [**11] Factual Background

Zappos is an online retailer of apparel, shoes, handbags, home furnishing, beauty products, and accessories. (Rajan Decl. ¶ 3 (#3-1).) Plaintiffs are Zappos customers who gave personal information to Zappos in order to purchase goods via and/or (Id. ¶¶ 4-7; Rajan Second Supp'l Decl. ¶¶ 3-13 (#13-1).) In mid-January 2012, a computer hacker attacked and attempted to download files containing customer information such as names and addresses from a Zappos server (the "Security Breach"). (Defs.' Mot. Compel at 1 (#3); Pls.' Opp'n at 4 (#10).) Plaintiffs allege that on January 16, 2012, Zappos notified Plaintiffs via email that their personal customer account information had been compromised by hackers. (Def.'s Mot. Compel at 6 (#3); Steven Pls.' Opp'n at 1 (#9); Pls.' Opp'n at 4 (#10).) Plaintiffs have filed complains in federal district courts across the country seeking relief pursuant to state and federal statutory and common law for damages resulting from the Security Breach.

II. Procedural Background

On June 14, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred nine pending actions 2 to the  [**12] District of Nevada for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Transfer Order (#1).) On July 16, 2012, the MDL Panel transferred an additional case into this action. 3

Also on June 14, 2012, Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action (#3) was filed in this Court. 4 On August 30,  [**13] 2012, Plaintiffs Theresa D. Stevens, Stacy Penson, Tara J. Elliot, Brooke C. Brown, and Christa Seal (the "Stevens Plaintiffs") filed their Opposition (#9). Plaintiffs Stephanie Priera, Patti Hasner, Robert Ree, Shari Simon, and Kathryn Vorhoff (the "Priera Plaintiffs") also filed their Opposition (#10) on August 30, 2012. Plaintiffs Dahlia Habashy and Josh Richards each submitted their respective Joinder (##11, 12) to the Priera Opposition (#10) on August 30, 2012. Defendants submitted a Joinder of Additional Plaintiffs (#14) to their Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action (#3) on August 30, 2012. Defendants filed their Reply (#16) on September 6, 2012. The Court held a hearing on the motion and heard the parties' oral arguments on September 19, 2012.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

893 F. Supp. 2d 1058 *; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141803 **; 95 A.L.R.6th 721; 2012 WL 4466660


Subsequent History: Motion granted by In re, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181087 (D. Nev., Dec. 19, 2012)

Motion denied by, Motion granted by, Motion denied by, As moot In re Zappos, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39479 (D. Nev., Mar. 27, 2015)

Prior History: In re, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102273 (J.P.M.L., July 16, 2012)


arbitration, website, user, illusory, notice, assent, consumer, unenforceable, unilateral, binding, click, manifestation, Customer, bottom, Site, browsewrap, modify