Levitte v. Google Inc.
MOTION to Relate C08-3369 JW, C08-3452 RMW, C08-3888 SI Cases filed by Pulaski & Middleman, LLC. (Saveri, Guido) (Filed on 9/2/2008) Modified on 9/3/2008 (cv, COURT STAFF).
Levitte v. Google Inc.
5 6 7
Guido Saveri (022349) email@example.com R. Alexander Saveri (173102) firstname.lastname@example.org Cadio Zirpoli (179108) email@example.com
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 1l I Pine Street, Suite 1700
Telephone: (415) 217 -6810 Facsimile: (415) 217 -6813
Terry Gross (103878) firstname.lastname@example.org Adam C. Belsky (147800) email@example.com Monique Alonso (127078) firstname.lastname@example.org GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-0200 Facsimile: (415) 544-0201 Attorneys for Pulaski & Middleman, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
HAL K. LEVITTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarlv situated.
PLAINTIFF PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN, LLC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER \ilHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
25 26 27 28
a Delaware corporation,
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED cASE NO. 08-03369-JW
This Document Relates to:
PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
GOOGLE, fNC., a Delaware corporation,
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff Pulaski & Middleman, LLC submits this
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related pursuant to Civil Local
12 Rule 3-12.
Levitte v. Google, Inc., ("Levitte") Case No. 08-03369-JW, complaint filed July
and assigned to the Honorable James Ware.
l, 2008 in the Northern District of Califomia
RK llest, Inc. v. Google, Inc., ("RK West") Case No. 08-03452-RS, complaint ,2008 in the Northern District of California and assigned to the Honorable Ronald
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., ("Pulaski & Middlemøn") Case No.
20 08-3888-SI, complaint filed August 14, 2008 in the Northern District of California and assigned
to the Honorable Susan Illston. 22
RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACTIONS
This administrative motion is made on the grounds that the three actions referred to above
involve substantially similar subject matter: Google AdWord's misleading practice of charging
' On August29,2008, plaintiff RK West filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, also seeking to relate the three above-mentioned actions before the Honorable James
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 08-03369-JW
for ads placed on parked domain and error pages. Plaintiffs in Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski &
Middleman all assert claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code asainst
the same sole defendant.
It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense
or the possibility of conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. Relating the cases will help eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
and conserve the resources ofthe parties, their counsel, and thejudiciary.
The actions referred to above satisfy the criteria of Rule 3-12. Therefore plaintiff Pulaski
& Middleman, LLC respectfully requests that the cases be deemed related and that they
assigned to the Honorable James Ware, the Judge assigned to the low numbered case, Levitte v.
Google, Inc., Case No. 08-03369-JV/.
DATED: September 2, 2008
SAVERI & SAVERI.INC.
/s/ Cqdio Zirpoli Guido Saveri (22349) R. Alexander Saveri (173102) Cadio Zirpoli (179108)
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
Telephone: (415) 217 -6810
Terry Gross (103878) Adam C. Belsky (147800) Monique Alonso (127078) GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone : (41 5) 5 44-0200 Attorneys for Pulaski & Middleman, LLC
26 27 28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 08-03369-JV/
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?