Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Yelp! Inc.

Filing 60

NOTICE by Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. of Stipulation & Administrative Motion to Relate Cases (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jack Fitzgerald Re Notice of Stipulation & Administrative Motion to Relate Cases)(Fitzgerald, John) (Filed on 6/2/2010)

1 THE WESTON FIRM GREGORY S. WESTON (239944) 2 888 Turquoise Street San Diego, CA 92109 3 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] 5 JACK FITZGERALD (257370) 6 2811 Sykes Court Santa Clara, CA 95051 7 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] 9 BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS JARED H. BECK (233743) 10 ELIZABETH LEE BECK (233742) Courthouse Plaza Building 11 28 West Flagler Street, Suite 555 12 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] 14 [e-mail] 15 16 17 18 19 CATS AND DOGS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 20 INC. et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 21 Plaintiffs, 22 23 v. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 3:10-cv-02351-MEJ Pleading Type: Class Action DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD Judge: The Hon. Maria-Elena James Action Filed: February 23, 2010

24 YELP! INC., 25 26 27 Defendant.

Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc.et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD

1 2

I, Jack Fitzgerald, declare: 1. I am counsel to Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class in the above-captioned matter. I

3 make this Declaration further to the concurrently-filed Notice of Stipulation & Administrative 4 Motion to Relate Cases. 5 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Stipulation in Support of Administrative

6 Motion to Relate Cases Pursuant to L.R. 3-12(b) and 7-11, was filed on June 2, 2010 in the 7 matter of Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., No. CV 10-01321 MHP (N.D. Cal.), pending before the Honorable 8 Marilyn Hall Patel. 9 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an Administrative Motion of Yelp! Inc. to Relate

10 Cases, along with the exhibits thereto, which was filed on June 2, 2010 in the matter of Levitt v. 11 Yelp! Inc., No. CV 10-01321 MHP (N.D. Cal.), pending before the Honorable Marilyn Hall 12 Patel. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United

14 States that the foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed in Santa Clara, California on June 2, 2010 16 17 Dated: May 28, 2010 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 /s/ Jack Fitzgerald Jack Fitzgerald Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Jack Fitzgerald Jack Fitzgerald THE WESTON FIRM GREGORY S. WESTON JACK FITZGERALD 888 Turquoise Street San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 480 247 4553 BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS JARED H. BECK ELIZABETH LEE BECK Courthouse Plaza Building 28 West Flagler Street, Suite 555 Miami, FL 33130 Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc.et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD

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

Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 786 664 3334

Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc.et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD

Exhibit A

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-4

Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

COOLEY LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail]) MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972) ([e-mail]) BENJAMIN H. KLEINE (257225) ([e-mail]) 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC. MURRAY & ASSOCIATES LAWRENCE D. MURRAY (77536) ([e-mail]) 1781 Union St. San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff BORIS Y. LEVITT THE WESTON FIRM GREGORY S. WESTON (2939944) ([e-mail]) JACK FITZGERALD (257370) ([e-mail]) 888 Turquoise St. San Diego, CA 92109 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs CATS AND DOGS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL. (Plaintiffs in Case No. CV 10-02351 MEJ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BORIS Y. LEVITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP! INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

No. CV 10-01321 MHP STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) AND 7-11) Courtroom: 15 Judge: Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel Trial Date: None Set

1.

STIP. I/S/O ADMIN. MOT. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-4

Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12(b) and 7-11, Plaintiff Boris Y. Levitt, Plaintiffs Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc., et al., and Defendant Yelp! Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate that the following actions should be deemed related and conducted before the same judge: Boris Y. Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. CV 10-01321 MHP; and Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc., et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. CV 10-02351 MEJ. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: June 2, 2010 COOLEY LLP /s/ Matthew D. Brown Matthew D. Brown (196972) Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC.

Dated: June 2, 2010

MURRAY & ASSOCIATES /s/ Lawrence D. Murray Lawrence D. Murray (77536) Attorneys for Plaintiff BORIS Y. LEVITT

Dated: June 2, 2010

THE WESTON FIRM /s/ Gregory S. Weston Gregory S. Weston (239944) Attorneys for Plaintiffs CATS AND DOGS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ET AL. (Plaintiffs in Case No. CV 1002351 MEJ)

2.

STIP. I/S/O ADMIN. MOT. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-4

Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 I, Matthew D. Brown, attest that concurrence in the filing of this STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (Civil L.R. 3-12(b) and 7-11) has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of June, 2010, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Matthew D. Brown_______ Matthew D. Brown

674891/SD

3.

STIP. I/S/O ADMIN. MOT. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

Exhibit B

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10

Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

COOLEY LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail]) MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972) ([e-mail]) BENJAMIN H. KLEINE (257225) ([e-mail]) 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BORIS Y. LEVITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP! INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

No. CV 10-01321 MHP YELP! INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) AND 7-11) Courtroom: 15 Judge: Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel Trial Date: None Set

Defendant Yelp! Inc. ("Yelp"), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, hereby files this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12(b) and 7-11, to consider whether the action entitled Boris Y. Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. CV 10-01321 MHP ("Levitt"), and the action entitled Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc, et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. CV 10-02351 MEJ ("Cats and Dogs") should be related. This motion is supported by the stipulation, filed herewith, of all parties to the two cases. The Levitt action was filed on March 12, 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, and was entitled Boris Y. Levitt, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Yelp! Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-10497777. Yelp removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) on March 29,

1.

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10

Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

2010. A true and correct copy of the Complaint in the Levitt action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Cats and Dogs action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 24, 2010. It was assigned to the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank. A true and correct copy of the First Amended Complaint in the Cats and Dogs action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On May 4, 2010, on Yelp's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Judge Fairbank ordered Cats and Dogs transferred to this Court. A true and correct copy of the Order transferring the case is attached as Exhibit C. On May 28, 2010, the case was opened on this Court's docket. On April 7, 2010, Yelp filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions or Proceedings pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-13 in the Levitt action1 and a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions or Proceedings pursuant to Central District Local Rule 83-1.4 in the Cats and Dogs action. The Cats and Dogs and Levitt Actions Are Related The Cats and Dogs and Levitt actions are related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), since the actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event and would result in an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense and increase the likelihood of conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Yelp operates a website (www.yelp.com) that allows consumers to find local businesses, and to read and write reviews about them. The website features information on and reviews of businesses throughout the United States and is visited by approximately 30 million people per month. Yelp makes money by, inter alia, selling ads to local businesses, which appear as "Sponsored Results" on Yelp's website.

Yelp's Notice of Pendency included notice of a second related case pending in the Central District entitled LaPausky v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. CV 10-01578 VBF (SSx). Plaintiff LaPausky had originally been represented by separate counsel. On April 16, 2010, counsel for plaintiffs in the Cats and Dogs action filed a Notice of Substitution of Counsel notifying the court and parties that such counsel was substituting in for LaPausky's previous counsel. On April 29, 2010, LaPausky's new counsel filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dismissing the LaPausky action. 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

1

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10

Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 3

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
COOLEY LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O

Plaintiffs in both actions seek to represent nearly identically defined putative classes in lawsuits against the same defendant, Yelp. (Compare Ex. A ¶ 36 with Ex. B ¶ 171.) Plaintiffs in both actions are businesses that allege that, based on whether a business chooses to advertise with Yelp or not, the display of reviews of such business on www.yelp.com is either positively or negatively affected. (Compare, e.g., Ex. A ¶¶ 6-13 with Ex. B ¶¶ 91-93.) Plaintiffs in both actions assert claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff in Levitt includes additional claims for (a)

violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, (b) negligent misrepresentation, and (c) intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in Cats and Dogs include additional claims for (a) violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 518-19 (extortion), (b) violation of Cal. Penal Code § 524 (attempted extortion), and (c) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Thus, the factors specified in Local Civil Rule 3-12(a) are met. The actions concern substantially the same parties, and they concern substantially overlapping subject matter, namely Yelp's advertising and review display policies and practices. If the cases were not related and conducted before the same judge, there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense by Yelp, eventual class counsel, and the Court. There would also be a risk of conflicting results. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Yelp, supported by the stipulation of the plaintiffs in each action, respectfully submits that the Levitt and Cats and Dogs actions are related and should be conducted before the same judge. Dated: June 2, 2010 COOLEY LLP /s/ Matthew D. Brown Matthew D. Brown (196972) Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC.

1179787/SF

3.

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. CV 10-01321 MHP

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page4 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page5 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page6 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page7 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page8 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page9 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page10 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page11 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page12 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page13 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page14 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page15 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page16 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page17 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page18 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-1

Filed06/02/10 Page19 of 19

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page4 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page5 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page6 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page7 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page8 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page9 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page10 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page11 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page12 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page13 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page14 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page15 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page16 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page17 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page18 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page19 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page20 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page21 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page22 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page23 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page24 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page25 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page26 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page27 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page28 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page29 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page30 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page31 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page32 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page33 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page34 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page35 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page36 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page37 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page38 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page39 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-2

Filed06/02/10 Page40 of 40

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page1 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page2 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page3 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page4 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page5 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page6 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page7 of 8

Case3:10-cv-01321-MHP Document10-3

Filed06/02/10 Page8 of 8