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

Filing 82

NOTICE by Yelp! Inc. Defendant Yelp! Inc.'s Notice of Pendency of Other Actions or Proceedings (Civil L.R. 3-13) (Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 7/16/2010)

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 AT L A W SAN FRANCISCO

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 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

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

No. CV 10-01321 MHP DEFENDANT YELP! INC.'S NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS (CIVIL L.R. 3-13) Courtroom: 15 Judge: Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel Trial Date: None Set

CATS AND DOGS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC.,et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YELP! INC., Defendant.

No. CV 10-02351 MHP

1.

DEF. YELP'S NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS OR PROC. CASE NOS. CV 10-1321& 10-2351 MHP

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 AT L A W SAN FRANCISCO

Defendant Yelp! Inc. ("Yelp"), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, hereby notifies the Court and all opposing parties pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-13 that the two instant actions, Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., No. CV 10-01321 MHP ("Levitt"), and Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v. Yelp! Inc., No. CV 10-02351 MHP ("Cats and Dogs"), involve overlapping subject matter and the same defendant as another pending action. The other action, entitled Gelareh Rahbar and Rahbar Dentistry, PC v. Yelp! Inc., No. CGC 10 499227 ("Rahbar"), is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The Rahbar Action Yelp operates a popular website, www.yelp.com (the "Yelp Website"), which allows Yelp users (known as "Yelpers") to write reviews of local businesses and allows anyone to read these reviews. Since 2004, Yelpers have written millions of reviews about every kind of local

business­­from restaurants and cafes to mechanics and dentists. Yelpers rate these businesses on a scale of one to five stars. Like many websites, Yelp sells advertisements to local businesses, which can appear on the Yelp Website as "Sponsored Results" (clearly labeled as such) in response to certain searches. Per their allegations, the plaintiffs in Rahbar (the "Rahbar Plaintiffs") are a dentist and her professional corporation, which advertised on Yelp's website beginning in 2008. The Rahbar Plaintiffs allege that after they began advertising on Yelp, two false and defamatory reviews of their business were posted by third parties on Yelp's website, causing a loss in revenue. After the negative reviews were posted, the Rahbar Plaintiffs allege that Yelp demanded more money from them, or the negative and false reviews would become more prominent. Yelp denies these allegations. Yelp terminated its advertising relationship with Plaintiffs after learning that

Plaintiffs had sued the third-party users who posted the negative reviews of their business. Relationship of the Rahbar Action to the Levitt and Cats and Dogs Actions The Rahbar action involves overlapping subject matter and claims with the Levitt and Cats and Dogs act ions. The Rahbar action focuses its factual allegations on allegedly defamatory statements posted by certain, specific Yelpers--allegations that do not form the basis of the Levitt and Cats and Dogs act ions. However, Rahbar does involve--like Levitt and Cats and Dogs-- 2.
DEF. YELP'S NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS OR PROC. CASE NOS. CV 10-1321& 10-2351 MHP

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 AT L A W SAN FRANCISCO

allegat ions that, based on whether a business chooses to advertise with Yelp or not, the display of reviews of such business on the Yelp Website is either positively or negatively affected. Plaintiffs in all three actions assert claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The Rahbar Plaintiffs also include claims for (a) violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 518-19 (extortion), (b) violation of Cal. Penal Code § 524 (attempted extortion), (c) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (d) unauthorized commercial use of name, (e) conspiracy to injure in trade, and (f) interference with contract. Plaintiffs in the Cats and Dogs act ion 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. Plaintiff in the Levitt action includes additional claims for (a) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, (b) negligent misrepresentation, and (c) intentional misrepresentation. Unlike the Levitt and Cats and Dogs actions, the Rahbar action is not styled as a class action. Yelp Has Moved to Stay the Rahbar Action Under California-State-Law Principles Applicable When Related Federal Actions Are Pending On June 11, 2010, Yelp moved to stay the Rahbar act ion pending resolution of the Levitt and Cats and Dogs actions, to avoid conflicts, conserve resources, and promote an efficient determination of the actions. Under California state law, a state court has discretion to stay a state-court action when there is a pending federal-court action that covers the same subject matter. Caiafa Prof'l Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 15 Cal. App. 4th 800, 804 (1993). Concurrent with the motion to stay, Yelp also filed a demurrer to the Complaint in the Rahbar action. Dated: July 16, 2010 COOLEY LLP /s/ Matthew D. Brown Matthew D. Brown (196972) Attorneys for Defendant Yelp! Inc.
1187164 /SF

3.

DEF. YELP'S NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS OR PROC. CASE NOS. CV 10-1321& 10-2351 MHP