Feldman v. Google, Inc.

Filing 6

Feldman v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 6

Case 5:07-cv-02411-RMW

Document 6

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 1 of 3

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

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 DAVID J. SILBERT - #173128 KEVIN T. REED - #240799 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE E. FELDMAN, d/b/a LAWRENCE E. FELDMAN and ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants. STEVE MIZERA, an Individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. C 07-02411 PVT DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED (Civil L.R. 3-12 and 7-11)

Case No. C 05 02579 RMW Consolidated with Case No. C 05 02885 RMW

GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Case No. C 07-02411 PVT Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:07-cv-02411-RMW

Document 6

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 2 of 3

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

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") hereby notifies the Court that the action currently pending before this Court, entitled Larry E. Feldman v. Google, Case No. C 07-02411 PVT (the "Feldman Action") is related to the consolidated class action, Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 05 02579 RMW, consolidated with Steve Mizera, v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 05 02885 RMW (the "Consolidated Class Action"), which was previously pending before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in this District. The Consolidated Class Action was premised on the allegation that Google overcharged for pay-per-click advertising by failing to discover and account for internet users who viewed plaintiff's advertisements with an ill intent and with no intention of doing business with the advertiser. A parallel class action filed in Arkansas, Case No. CV-2005-52-1, Circuit Court, Miller County, Arkansas ("the Arkansas Action"), eventually led to a class-wide settlement. On December 7, 2006, after the Arkansas Court approved the class-wide settlement, Judge Whyte dismissed the Consolidated Class Action. In the Feldman action, Plaintiff Lawrence Feldman claims to have opted out of the classwide settlement in order to assert individually the same claims and allegations asserted in the Arkansas Action and the Consolidated Class Action. II. ARGUMENT

Civil Local Rule 3-12 provides that two actions within this District are related when they "concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and [i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges." Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(1)-(2). Both elements are met here. First, the instant action and the Consolidated Class Action concern the same transaction or event. The substantive allegation in the two actions--that Google supposedly overcharged for pay-per-click advertising by failing to discover and account for illegitimate clicks--are identical. The two actions also involve the same parties. Google remains the lone defendant, and Mr. 1
GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)

Case 5:07-cv-02411-RMW

Document 6

Filed 06/12/2007

Page 3 of 3

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

Feldman--first as a putative class member, and now as an individual--is a plaintiff in both cases. Second, the failure to relate the cases may result in "unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense," because Judge Whyte--having presided over the virtually identical Consolidated Class Action for over a year--is familiar with the allegations, legal theories, and the contract language at issue. III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Feldman action is related to the Consolidated Class Action that was previously pending before Judge Whyte.

Dated: June 12, 2007

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ David J. Silbert DAVID J. SILBERT Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE, INC.

2
GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS)