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

Filing 7

NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Yelp! Inc.. Related Case(s): 2:10-CV-01578 R-E (Rhodes, Michael)

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 GODWARD KRONISH 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 GODWARD KRONISH LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail]) 101 California Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP SARAH R. BOOT (253658) ([e-mail]) 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTINE LaPAUSKY d/b/a D'AMES DAY SPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YELP! INC., Defendant. CATS AND DOGS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YELP! INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:10-cv-01340 VBF-SS Case No. 2:10-cv-01578 R-E NOTICE OF RELATED CASES: CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01578-R-E & CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01340 VBF-SS (L.R. 83-1.3)

1.

L.R. 83-1.3 NOTICE OF RELATED CASES CASE NOS. 2:10-CV-01340 & 01578

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

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant Yelp! Inc. ("Yelp!") provides notice that the above-captioned cases are related. These cases meet the standard for relatedness because they call for the determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact (L.R. 83-1.3.1(b)) and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges (L.R. 83-1.3.1(c)). Plaintiff in Christine LaPausky d/b/a D'ames Day Spa v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01578-R-E, has marked the case as related to Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv01340 VBF-SS on her civil cover sheet attached to her filed complaint. BRIEF FACTUAL STATEMENT Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01340 VBF-SS, was filed in this Court on February 23, 2010. Christine LaPausky d/b/a D'ames Day Spa v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01578-R-E, was filed on March 3, 2010. Both of the cases are putative class actions, both involve the same defendant, both present similar factual allegations, both provide an identical putative class, and both allege the same cause of action, namely violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code ("UCL") Section 17200 et seq. Indeed, many of the allegations are identical between the two complaints. In Cats and Dogs, Plaintiff Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. ("Cats and Dogs") alleges that Yelp! employees stated that if Cats and Dogs purchased Yelp!'s advertising services, Yelp! would hide or remove negative reviews from the Cats and Dogs Yelp.com page. Cats and Dogs alleges that after declining to purchase Yelp!'s advertising services, negative reviews appeared on Cats and Dogs' Yelp.com page. Cats and Dogs also quotes a handful of newspaper articles concerning Yelp!'s business and sales practices related to the effect of advertising on user reviews. Cats and Dogs' sole claim is a claim for violation of UCL § 17200, and it seeks to permanently enjoin Yelp! from engaging in the complained
2.
L.R. 83-1.3 NOTICE OF RELATED CASES CASE NOS. 2:10-CV-01340 & 01578

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

of practices and seeks disgorgement of profits, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs, individually, and on behalf of a nationwide class. Similarly, in the LaPausky case, Plaintiff Christine LaPausky d/b/a D'ames Day Spa ("LaPausky") alleges that after encouraging her customers to leave positive reviews for her salon on Yelp.com, many of those reviews were removed because she declined to purchase Yelp!'s advertising services. LaPausky quotes the same newspaper articles as in the Cats and Dogs complaint, alleges the same cause of action (a violation of UCL § 17200), and seeks the same relief, on behalf of herself and an identically defined, putative, nationwide class. attached to her complaint. As noted by Plaintiff in the LaPausky case, these cases are clearly related. First, Yelp! is the sole defendant in each case. Second, many of the allegations are substantially similar and they are literally identical in the following portions of the Complaints: (a) Jurisdiction and Venue; (b) Introduction and Background; (c) the Class Representation Allegations, and (d) the Prayer for Relief. Further, Plaintiffs in both cases allege the same cause of action: violation of UCL Section 17200. Third, for these reasons, Yelp!'s witnesses and evidence will almost completely overlap, and the any certified class of plaintiffs is likely to be the same. Because the cases call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges, Defendant respectfully submits that they are related and should be heard by the same judge. /// /// /// /// ///
3.
L.R. 83-1.3 NOTICE OF RELATED CASES CASE NOS. 2:10-CV-01340 & 01578

LaPausky

furthermore marked the case as related to Cats and Dogs on her civil cover sheet

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

Dated:

March 11, 2010

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) /s/ Michael G. Rhodes Michael G. Rhodes (116127) Attorneys for Defendant YELP! INC.

665742 v4/SD

4.

L.R. 83-1.3 NOTICE OF RELATED CASES CASE NOS. 2:10-CV-01340 & 01578