Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 16 Defendant's Administrative Motion to Relate Case C08-3369 JW, C08-3452 RMW, and C08-3888 SI. It does not determine whether those cases are related to each other. That Issue is before Judge Ware, whose Levitte case has the lowest docket number of the three. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008) Modified on 10/16/2008 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Google moves to relate this action with RK West v. Google, Inc., Case No. C-0803452 RMW, Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-0388 SI, and Levitte v. Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-3369 JW. All parties agree that the three cases sought here to be related are themselves related. Therefore, the only question for the court is whether those cases relate to the instant one, which bears the lowest docket number. It appears that, though in all four cases the defendant is Google and the case concerns the Adwords program, the similarity ends there. RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte all deal with Google ads posted on "parked domains" and "error pages," whereas this case concerns Google charging customers for content ads who, during the Adwords bidding process, left the "CPC content bid" input blank. Furthermore, the proposed class in this case does not appear to overlap with the
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES--No. C-08-02088 RMW JAS

E-FILED on

09/29/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Google, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

No. C-08-02088 RMW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES [Re Docket No. 16]

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

proposed classes in RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte. See Joint Opp'n to Mot. to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, 2-3. This order only determines that Almeida is not related to RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte. It does not determine whether those cases are related to each other. That issue is before Judge Ware, whose Levitte case has the lowest docket number of the three. Accordingly, the court denies defendant's motion to relate.

DATED:

09/29/08

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES--No. C-08-02088 RMW JAS 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Daralyn J. Durie David Jason Silbert Ryan Marshall Kent Alyse Deborah Bertenthal Leo Patrick Norton Counsel for Defendants: Alfredo Torrijos Brian S. Kabateck [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated:

09/29/08

JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES--No. C-08-02088 RMW JAS 3