Gallion v. Apple, Inc

Filing 20

MOTION to Relate Case ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED filed by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Muhlbach, Andrew) (Filed on 8/6/2010)

Gallion v. Apple, Inc Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607) PPreovolos@mofo.com ANDREW D. MUHLBACH (CA SBN 175694) AMuhlbach@mofo.com HEATHER A. MOSER (CA SBN 212686) HMoser@mofo.com SAMUEL J. BOONE LUNIER (CA SBN 252732) slunier@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CHARLENE GALLION, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CV 10-01610-RS CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [L.R. 3-12] Judge Richard Seeborg, Courtroom 3 Complaint Filed: April 15, 2010 Trial Date: None Set ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CV 10-01610-RS sf-2878340 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to a joint stipulation filed herewith, defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby moves pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 for a determination that this first-filed action, Charlene Gallion v. Apple Inc., Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. CV 1001610-RS ("Gallion"), is "related" to a later-filed action, Christopher Corsi v. Apple Inc. et al., Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. CV 10-03316 PVT (filed July 28, 2010) ("Corsi"). The nature of the relationship between this first-filed action and the subsequently-filed Corsi action is that: (1) the cases both assert substantially similar claims against the same defendant, Apple; (2) the putative classes in both actions substantially overlap; and (3) both cases require determination of the same or substantially similar questions of fact and law. Specifically, each action focuses on (i) whether the Liquid Contact Indicators ("LCIs") in Apple's iPhone and iPod products are a reliable indicator of liquid damage; and (ii) whether Apple's warranty policies concerning the LCIs are reasonable or appropriate.1 Indeed, substantial portions of the Corsi complaint appear to be identical to the Gallion complaint. Due to their similarity, if not treated as related, these cases are likely to require substantial duplication of labor and expense and present a potential danger of inconsistent rulings regarding the same issues of law. Given the closely related nature of each of these cases, the treatment of these actions as related would serve the interests of judicial economy and avoid the potential for conflicting rulings. Accordingly, Apple asks this Court to enter an order relating the later-filed Corsi action to this first-filed action. Apple does not concede the truth any of these factual allegations or that certification of the putative classes is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CV 10-01610-RS sf-2878340 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: August 6, 2010 PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS ANDREW D. MUHLBACH HEATHER A. MOSER SAMUEL J. BOONE LUNIER MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/ Andrew D. Muhlbach ANDREW D. MUHLBACH Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CV 10-01610-RS sf-2878340 2