Judelsohn v. Fitbit, Inc

Filing 35

ORDER REGARDING OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFING IN CONJUNCTION WITH FITBIT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on July 18, 2014. (cwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ROBYN JUDELSOHN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly
situated,

6
7

Plaintiffs,
v.

8

FITBIT, INC.,

9

Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

GEORGE REED, RANDI AKANA, MILISSA
MORGAN, KYLE MCCLOUD, LAURIE
MCGUIRE, and MICHAEL BASKHARON,
individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.

16

FITBIT, INC.,

17

No. C 14-1287 CW
ORDER REGARDING
OPPOSITION AND
REPLY BRIEFING IN
CONJUNCTION WITH
FITBIT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Docket No. 31)

No. C 14-1350 CW
ORDER REGARDING
OPPOSITION AND
REPLY BRIEFING IN
CONJUNCTION WITH
FITBIT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

Defendant.
________________________________/

18
19

(Docket No. 20)

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff Robyn Judelsohn brought a

20

putative class action against Defendant Fitbit, Inc. for skin

21

irritation injury allegedly related to her use of a Fitbit Force

22

wristband.

23

(Fitbit 1), Docket No. 1.

24

Reed, Randi Akana, Milissa Morgan, Kyle McCloud, Laurie McGuire,

25

and Michael Baskharon also filed a putative class action against

26

Defendant Fitbit, Inc., related to similar skin irritation

27

injuries allegedly caused by Fitbit Force wristbands.

See, Reed

28

v. Fitbit, Case No. 14-1350 (Fitbit 2), Docket No. 1.

On April 1,

See Judelsohn v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 14-1287
On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs George

1

2014, the Court granted Judelsohn’s motion to relate the two

2

cases.

3

On July 1, 2014, Fitbit filed motions to dismiss the class

4

action complaints in both cases.

See Fitbit 1, Docket No. 31 and

5

Fitbit 2, Docket No. 20.

6

the same -- Fitbit alleges that the motions should be granted

7

because of mootness, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, lack of

8

particularity for fraud-based claims, failure to plead knowledge

9

of the alleged defect, and inadequacy of class action allegations.

The motions to dismiss are substantially

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

See id.

11

by July 31, 2014; replies are due by August 14, 2014.

12

Docket No. 32; Fitbit 2, Docket No. 21.

13

for August 28, 2014 in both cases.

14

The oppositions related to the motions to dismiss are due
Fitbit 1,

A hearing is scheduled

Id.

Plaintiffs in the two cases are represented by different

15

counsel.

16

pending motions to dismiss contain many overlapping legal issues,

17

the parties shall coordinate submission of a joint opposition and

18

joint reply with separate sections to address any differences in

19

order to facilitate judicial economy.

20

However, because the cases are factually similar and the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated:

07/18/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2