Curry v. Yelp Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RELATE CASES re (12 in 3:14-cv-03547-JST) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulated Administrative Motion re: Related Cases; Local Rules 3-12(b); 7-11; filed by Geoffrey Donaker, Yelp Inc., Robert J. Krolik, Jeremy Stoppelman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 22, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOSEPH CURRY,

Case No. 14-cv-03547-JST

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES

v.
9
10

YELP INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

There is an action pending in this court entitled Mary Adams v. Yelp, et. al., No. 3:14-cv-

14

03832-EMC. The parties in Joseph Curry v. Yelp, Inc., 14-cv-03547-JST, have filed a stipulation

15

that asks this Court to consider whether Adams should be related to Curry pursuant to Civil Local

16

Rule 3-12. “An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same

17

parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly

18

burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted

19

before different Judges.” Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1). The cases are both proposed securities class

20

actions on behalf of purchasers who acquired Yelp stock between October 29, 2013 and April 3,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2014. Both cases name the same defendants.
As the judge assigned to the earliest filed case, No. 3:14-cv-03547-JST, I find that Adams
is related to Curry, and Adams shall be reassigned to me.
Counsel are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials
JST immediately after the case number. Any case management conference in the reassigned case
will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures
and report required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any
dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re-noticed by the moving party before

1

the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and any

2

deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, except dates for appearance

3

in court, which will be rescheduled by the undersigned.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 22, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2