Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Filing 19

Declaration of Willem F. Jonckheer in Support of 18 Memorandum in Opposition to Google's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 filed byDavid Almeida. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Related document(s) 18 ) (Jonckheer, Willem) (Filed on 9/9/2008)

Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 19

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

ROBERT C. SCHUBERT S.B.N. 62684 WILLIAM F. JONCKHEER S.B.N. 178748 KIMBERLY A. KRALOWEC S.B.N. 163158 DUSTIN L. SCHUBERT S.B.N. 254876 SCHUBERT JONCKHEER KOLBE & KRALOWEC LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Hal K. Levitte BRIAN S. KABATECK S.B.N. 152054 ([e-mail]) RICHARD L. KELLNER S.B.N. 171416 ([e-mail]) ALFREDO TORRIJOS S.B.N. 222458 ([e-mail]) KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff RK West, Inc. GUIDO SAVERI S.B.N. 22349 R. ALEXANDER SAVERI S.B.N. 173102 CADIO ZIRPOLI S.B.N. 179108 SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, California 94111-5619 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Pulaski & Middleman, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. DECLARATION OF WILLEM F. JONCKHEER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12 CASE NO. 08-CV-02088 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

Dockets.Justia.com

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

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed by the State of California and am admitted to practice before

this Court. I am a partner at Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP, attorneys of record for plaintiff in Levitte v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-03369 JW ("Levitte"). I make this declaration in support of the Joint Opposition to Google's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed on behalf of plaintiffs in Levitte, RK West, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-03452 ("RK West"), and Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08-03888 SI ("Pulaski"). The matters set forth herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness I could competently testify regarding them. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a complaint captioned Almeida v.

Google, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-02088 ("Almeida") filed in the Northern District of California, pending before Judge Whyte. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a complaint captioned Levitte v.

Google, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-03369 filed in the Northern District of California, pending before Judge Ware. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a complaint captioned RK West,

Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-03452 filed in the Northern District of California, pending before the Judge Whyte. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a complaint captioned Pulaski &

Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. 08-CV-03888 filed in the Northern District of California, pending before Judge Ilston. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a complaint captioned CLRB

Hanson Ind. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 05-CV-03649-JW, pending before Judge Ware. 7. Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are all putative class actions on behalf of Google AdWords

customers who assert claims arising from the "parked domain" aspect of the AdWords program. 8. Almeida is a putative class action on behalf of Google AdWords customers who assert

claims arising from the "CPC content bid" aspect of the AdWords program.

DECLARATION OF WILLEM F. JONCKHEER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12 1

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

9.

On August 29, 2008, RK West filed an administrative motion asking the Court to consider

whether Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are related cases. 10. On September 2, 2008, Pulaski filed an administrative motion asking the Court to consider

whether Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are related cases. 11. On September 3, 2008, Levitte filed an administrative motion asking the Court to consider

whether Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are related cases. 12. On September 4, 2008, Google filed an Opposition to RK West's administrative motion

concurrently with its own administrative motion asking the Court to consider whether Almeida, Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are related cases. 13. On September 8, 2008, Google filed a Consolidated Opposition to Levitte's and Pulaski's

administrative motions. 14. 15. Plaintiffs and Google all agree that Levitte, RK West and Pulaski are related cases. Google bases its argument for relating the four putative class actions on the fact that each

involves the AdWords program. However, as explained in the accompanying memorandum, Google fails to address, in both its opposition and administrative motion, how the parked domain aspect of AdWords at issue in Almeida can logically be said to be substantially similar to the parked domain aspect of AdWords at issue in Levitte, RK West and Pulaski. 16. Google argues that Almeida is the low-numbered case for purposes of the local rule.

However, because Almeida does not deal with the substantially the same parties as those in Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski, and because the issues in Almeida do not arise from a substantially similar transaction or event as those in the other three putative class actions, the low-numbered cases for purposes of relating is the Levitte case, and not Almeida. Therefore, if the Court relates Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski, then the appropriate Judge to hear the cases is Judge Ware, and not Judge Whyte. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of September, 2008 at San Francisco, California.

DECLARATION OF WILLEM F. JONCKHEER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12 2

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

/s/ Willem F. Jonckheer Willem F. Jonckheer

DECLARATION OF WILLEM F. JONCKHEER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12 3