Pipkin et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al

Filing 6

Notice of Administrative Motion and Motion to Consider Whether Cases should be Related (Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, Case No. 5:11-cv-05774-PSG, Steiner v. Carrier IQ, Inc, Case No. 5:11-cv-05802-HRL. Thomas, et al v. Carrier IQ Inc, et al, Case No. 5:11-cv-05819-HRL, Pipkin et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, Case No. 5:11-cv-05820-HRL, Silvera et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, Case No. 3:11-cv-05821-SI, Padilla et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc, Case No. 5:11-cv-05975-HRL) filed by Jennifer Sue Patrick. (Rothken, Ira) (Filed on 12/7/2011) Modified on 12/8/2011 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2011)

1 IRA P. ROTHKEN (CA SBN 160029)
JARED R. SMITH (CA SBN 130343)
2 ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280
3
Novato, CA 94949
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
6
JOHN R. PARKER, JR., (CA SBN 257761)
7
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
8 401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
9 Telephone: [phone] (voice)
Facsimile: [phone] (fax)
10 Email: [e-mail]
11

Counsel for Plaintiffs
12 JENNIFER SUE PATRICK and SCOTT LEWIS
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16 JENNIFER SUE PATRICK, an individual and
SCOTT LEWIS, an individual on Behalf of
17 Themselves and for the Benefit of All with the
Common or General Interest, Any Persons
18 Injured, and All Others Similarly Situated,
19

Civ. Action No. 5:11-cv-05842-PSG
CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
AND MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (LR 3-12)

Plaintiffs,

20 v.

RELATED CASES:
Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al,
Case No. 5:11-cv-05774-PSG
Steiner v. Carrier IQ, Inc,
Case No. 5:11-cv-05802-HRL
Thomas, et al v. Carrier IQ Inc, et al,
Case No. 5:11-cv-05819-HRL
Pipkin et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al,
Case No. 5:11-cv-05820-HRL
Silvera et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al,
Case No. 3:11-cv-05821-SI
Padilla et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc,
Case No. 5:11-cv-05975-HRL

21 CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware corporation
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (LR 312)

-1-

1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Plaintiffs JENNIFER SUE
3 PATRICK and SCOTT LEWIS in Case No. 5:11-cv-05842-PSG (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
4 administratively move that the additional actions identified herein be related to action number
5 5:11-cv-05774-PSG, as they involve all or a material part of the same subject matter and all or
6 substantially all of the same parties as this action, are currently pending in this federal district and
7 action number 5:11-cv-05774-PSG is the lowest numbered, first filed action. Additional related
8 actions have been filed in other federal districts, including, but not limited to:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

McKeen v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al
Pacilli et al v. Carrier IQ Inc. et al
Schmidt et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al
Janek v. Carrier IQ, Inc., et al.
Wilson v. Carrier IQ, Inc.
Conley et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc.
Ferreira v. Carrier IQ, Inc.
Libby v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al
Elliott et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al
Cosme v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al
Link v. Carrier IQ, Inc. et al

District of Conn.
District of Delaware
SD Florida
ND Illinois
ND Illinois
SD Illinois
District of Mass.
District of Mass.
ED Missouri
ED Texas
District of RI

3:2011-cv-01895
1:2011-cv-01199
1:2011-cv-24352
1:2011-cv-08564
1:2011-cv-08579
3:2011-cv-01059
1:2011-cv-12146
1:2011-cv-12150
4:2011-cv-02095
1:2011-cv-00689
1:2011-cv-00603

and there is currently pending a motion to transfer before the Judicial Panel for Multi-District
Litigation (“JPML”), entitled, IN RE: Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL
Docket No: 2330, suggesting the Northern District of California as the transferee Court filed by
Plaintiffs Daniel Pipkin and Chad Ulrich, Northern District Case No. 5:11-cv-05820-HRL.
The action identified herein all involve claims against CARRIER IQ, INC. (“CARRIER

21 IQ” or “CIQ”) arising from the common facts and circumstances that Carrier IQ’s software
22 (“Rootkit Software” or “Carrier IQ Software”) in mobile devices intercepted private data from
23 owners’ smartphone computing devices and Carrier IQ stored such data on Carrier IQ’s servers
24 without prior notification to or authorization by the owners.
25

Several actions have named, in addition to Carrier IQ, the following manufacturers and/or

26 carriers: HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
27 LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (LR 312)

-2-

1 SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC., AT&T, INC., SPRINT
2 COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.
3

All the actions have a common nucleus of alleged facts and a substantial overlap on some

4 subset of the following causes of action:
5
6
7
8
9
10

Violation of the California Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act;
Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act;
Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
Violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution (Privacy);
Violation of California Penal Code §§631 And 637.2;
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200;
Violations of the California Privacy Act;
Trespass to Chattel;
Since these actions involve substantially similar claims for relief, against the same lead

11 defendant, concerning substantially the same affected nationwide consumer class of mobile
12 device users whose mobile devices contain the Carrier IQ software, and the same property,
13 services, transaction and event - i.e. that Carrier IQ’s software (“Rootkit Software” or “Carrier IQ
14 Software”) in mobile devices intercepted private data from owners’ smartphone computing
devices and Carrier IQ stored such data on Carrier IQ’s servers without prior notification to or
15
authorization by the owners and other wrongs by defendants, and the same or similar damages to
16
the consumer class, transfer and consolidation is appropriate.
17
Relating the action identified herein in a single judicial district for coordinated and/or
18
consolidated proceedings will promote the just and efficient conduct of these actions, will serve
19
the convenience of all parties and witnesses, and will promote the interests of justice, because all
20
actions involve the same class of persons, as well as common factual and legal issues. All of the
21
cases are in the very early stages of their respective litigations and parties would not be unduly
22
prejudiced by transfer. Relating these actions will be for the convenience of the parties and
23 witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of these actions, because it is expected that
24 plaintiffs' counsel in all actions will take discovery of similar witnesses and documents primarily
25 located at Defendants’ offices in California. Moreover, relating the actions to a single court for
26 coordinated and/or consolidated proceedings will conserve judicial resources, reduce litigation
27 costs, prevent potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings, avoid duplicative discovery, and permit the
28 cases to proceed to trial more efficiently.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (LR 312)

-3-

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 and 3-13, as the first filed action in the Northern District of

2 California with the lowest case number, all pending cases should be related to and/or coordinated
3 with Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, Case No. 5:11-cv-05774-PSG.
4 DATED: December 7, 2011

ROTHKEN LAW FIRM

5
6

By:

7

_____________________________
Ira P. Rothken, Esq., (State Bar #160029)
Counsel for Plaintiffs
JENNIFER SUE PATRICK and SCOTT LEWIS Ira
P. Rothken, Esq., (State Bar #160029)
Email: [e-mail]
Jared R. Smith (State Bar No. 130363)
Email: [e-mail]
ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
3 Hamilton Landing, Ste 280
Novato, CA 94949
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

John R. Parker, Jr. (State Bar No. 257761)
Email: [e-mail]
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
[phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)

15
16
17
18
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

20
I, Jared R. Smith, certify that I served the above document and the proposed order on counsel for
21 all parties that have appeared in the above-referenced actions via ECF.
22
23 Dated: December 7, 2011

________________________________

24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (LR 312)

-4-