Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google Inc.

Filing 18

Plaintiff's Statement in Response to 14 Notice of Pendency of Other Civil Action [Civil Local Rule 3-13(c)] filed byPulaski & Middleman, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Saveri, Guido) (Filed on 10/10/2008) Modified on 10/14/2008 (ys, COURT STAFF).

Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google Inc.

Doc. 18

1

2
J

4
5

6

Guido Saveri (022349) [e-mail] R. Alexander Saveri (173102) [e-mail] Cadio Zirpoli (179108) [e-mail] SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. l l l Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111-5619 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (415) 217 -6813 Attomeys for Pulaski & Middleman,LLC

I
9 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

1l

l2
13

14
15

PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff.
v.

Case

No. 08-3888-SI

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION ICIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-13(c)]

16

t7

l8
t9
20
2T

GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

22
4a

ZJ

24
25

26 27 28
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION lcrvrl- LocAL RULE 3-13(C)l

Dockets.Justia.com

I
2
3

In its Notice of Pendency of Other Action (Dock. No. 14), defendant Google Inc.
contends that this action should be stayed until a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois, -I1Z

Packaging, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 08-CV-4543 G\f.D. Ill.) (frled Aug. 1 1, 2008), "is re-

4
5

filed or transferred here." While plaintiff agrees the JIT Packaging action involves similar and
overlapping allegations and is therefore related to this case within the meaning of Civil Local
Rule 3-12, there is no reason for a stay. All four of the following actions are now pending in this

6

district:
8

1) Levitte v. Google, Inc.,

Case

No. C 08 033692 JW (frled June 11, 2008) ("Levitte");
Case

9 10
11

2) 3)
4)

RK West, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
l4/est");

No. C 08 03452 RS (filed July 17,2008) (",RK

Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 08 03888 SI (filed August 14,2008) ("Pulaski & Middleman"); and JIT Packaging, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,CaseNo. C 08 4701 PVT (re-filed Octonber 10,
2008) ("JIT
P ackaging").

t2
13

t4
15 T6

On October 8, 2008, the JIT PackagÌng case was voluntarily dismissed without

prejudice. (A true and correct copy of the dismissal order in JIT Packaging is attached hereto as Exhibit

I7
18
T9

A.) On October 10, 2008, the action was re-filed

in this District, San Jose Division, as

JIT Packaging, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. C 08 4701 PVT (N.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 10, 2008). On September 19, 2008, the Court in the Levitte and R.K. West matlers provisionally
denied plaintiff s previously-f,rled administrative motion to relate these cases (Dock. No. 16,
attached hereto as Exhibit B), pending resolution of another motion to relate, filed by defendant

20
2T

22

Google, Inc. in a different, earlier-filed case. On September 29,2008, the Honorable Ronald M.

¿)
24
25

Whyte denied Google's motion to relate the Levitte v. Google, Inc. case (and the Pulaski & Middleman and RK lüest cases) with the Almeida action, finding that"Almeidaisnot related to

RK

l4/est,

Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte." See Almeida v. Google, Inc., Order Denying

26 27 28

Defendant's Motion to Relate Cases, September 29,2008 (Dock. No. 20, attached hereto as

Exhibit C). Judge Whyte expressly declined to "determine whether those cases are related to
I
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION lcIVrI. LocAL RULE 3-13(C)l

1

each other. That issue is before Judse V/are. whose Levitte case has the lowest docket number

2
J
a

of the three." Id. As Judge Wh¡e noted, "all parties agÍee" that Levitte, RK West, and Pulaski & Middleman "are themselves related."

4
5

Id.

The parties also agree thatJIT Packaging is related.

Plaintiffs counsel in these related actions are requesting that the Honorable James Ware
respectfully reconsider the previously filed administrative motion to relate all of the
subsequently-filed cases, including Levitte, Pulaski & Middleman, RK West and JIT Packaging.

6

8

Consequently, there no longer remains a need to stay this action pending the transfer of the JIT Packaging action.

9
10
11

Dated: October 10,2008

T2 13

14

l5
t6

Guido Saveri (022349) [e-mail] R. Alexander Saveri (173102) [e-mail] Cadio Zirpoli (179108) [e-mail]

SAVERI & SAVERI,INC.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94lIl-56L9 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (415) 217 -6813

I7
18

t9
20

2l
22
ôa

ZJ

24
25

26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION lcrvrl- LocAL RULE 3-13(C)l

I
¿
a J

4
5

6

8

Terry Gross (103878) [e-mail] Adam C. Belsky (147800) [e-mail] Monique Alonso (127 0l 8) [e-mail] GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimilie: (41 5) 544-0201 Attorneys for Pulaski & Middleman, LLC

9 10

tl
t2
13

t4
15

16

google.009

t7
18

t9
20
21

22
aa LJ

24
25

26 27 28
PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION lcrvrl- LocAL RULE 3-13(C)l

ExUIBIT A

Case 1:08-cv-04543

Document2T

Filed

10/08/2008 Page 1of

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHER¡I DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
JIT Packaging, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarlv situated.
) ) Case No. 08-cv-4543

Plaintift
) GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Defendant. )
)

Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. Magistrate Judge Schenkier

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(aXlXAl(ii)
Pursuant

to Federal Rule of

Procedure a1(a)(l)(A)(ii), Plaintiff, JIT Packaging, Inc.

("JIT"), and Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") hereby stipulate to the voluntary dismissal,
without prejudice, of this action.

l.

Plaintift JIT, filed

a complaint on August I 1, 2008, against Google for breach

of

contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,

Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the similar statutes of various states, Common Law
Fraud and unjust enrichment.

2.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

al(a)(1)(Axii), Plaintiff and Defendant hereby consent

and stipulate to the voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of Plaintiffls entire complaint.

Dated: October 8.2008

Respectfully submitted,

By:/sÆIenr)' M. Johnathan M. Cyrluk, Esq. (#6210250) Henry M. Baskerville, Esq. (#6285712) (Electronically signed with the Authorization of Henry M. Baskerville)

Baskerville

express

By:/siRobert M. Foote Robert M. Foote (#03214325) Matthew J. Herman (#06237297) Mark A. Bulgarelli (#06284703)

Case 1:08-cv-04543 Document

27

Filed 1010812008 Page 2 of 3

STETLER & DUFFY, LTD 11 South LaSalle Street, Suite Chicago, Illinois 60603 [phone]

1200

FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWERS, LLC 28 North First St., Suite 2 Geneva, Illinois 60134 Tel. No.: [phone]
Peter L. Currie, Esq. (#06281711) THE LAW FIRM OF PETER L. CURRIE, P.C. 536 Wing Lane St. Charles, IL 60174 Tel. No.: [phone]

Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Leo P. Norton, Esq. COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA92l2l (8s8) ss0-6000
Peter Willsey, Esq.

LLP

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 777 6th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 [phone]
Attorneys

for

Defendant

Attorneys

þr Plaintiff

Case 1:08-cv-04543 Document

27

Filed 1010812008 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
hereby certify that on October 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U. S. District Court, Northem District of lllinois, using the electronic case f,rling system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a "Notice of Electronic Filing" to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means, and other attomeys of record have
been served by other means: Johnathan M. Cyrluk, Esq.

I

Henry M. Baskerville, Esq. STETLER & DUFFY, LTD l1 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (3 12) 338-0200

Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Leo P. Norton, Esq. COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA92l2l (8s8) s50-6000
Peter Willsey, Esq.

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 777 6th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 [phone]
Attorneys

þr

Defendant

/s/Robert M. Foote

ExmB[

B

Case5:08-cv-03452-RMW Documentl6

Filed

09/19/2008 Page 1of 3

I
a
L

a

J

4
5

6 7
8

IN THE I-INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNTA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION Hal K. Levitte, et al., Plaintiffs,
V.

l0
L \Jã *)E 9O .FE Ù)o H.Ã
!!: 11

NO. C 08-03369 JW NO. C 08-03452 RS NO. C 08-03888 SI

I2
Google,Inc.,
13

ORDER DEI\-YING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RELATE CASES
Defendant.

.9F Aç
rA *= ()F +)Y

l4
15

Øi r{
+¡l!

-=

Presently before the Court are two Motions to Relate Cases pursuant to Civil Local Rule 312, f/red by Plaintifß in this action and Plaintiffs in one of the allegedly related actions.r The

t6 t7
18

é)õ

Plaintiff groups move to relate this action with RK West" Inc. v. Google. Inc.. Case No. C 08-3452RS, and with Pulaski

Ð

& Middleman. LLC v. Google. Inc." Case No. C 08-3888-SL

t9
20

Having reviewed the parties' briefing papers, the Court finds that another motion to relate
cases, filed by Defendant Google, is currently pending before Judge Ronald

Whyte. (Declaration of

2l
22
23

Leo P. Norton in Support of Google, Inc.'s Consolidated Opposition to Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Docket Item No. 14.) The motion before Judge Wh¡e
requests relation of the three cases at issue here, along with a fourth case, Almeida v. Google. Inc.,
Case No. C 08-2088-RMW. The Almeida case is the earliest

24
25

filed case of the four.

26 27 28

t (Plaintiff Pulaski & Middleman, LLC's

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases

Should Be Related, Docket Item No. 5; Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, Docket Item No. 9.)

CaseS:08-cv-03452-RMW Documentl6

Filed

09/19/2008 Page 2 of 3

I
2
a

Rule 3-12(f) provides that "the Judge in this District who is assigned the earliest filed case

will decide if the cases are or are not related." If the Judge in the earliest filed

case does not relate

J

the cases, Rule 3-12(f)(2) permits Judges in the remaining cases to consider whether the later-filed
cases are related. Accordingly, the Court declines to relate this case with the cases, pending Judge

4
5

RK West and Pulaski

Wh¡e's resolution of Defendant's motion.

6 7
8

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motions to Relate Cases.

Dated: September 19, 2008

9
10

¡.

l1

V,E ùË= ) 9
't1 9

l2
l3
T4 15 T6

ËY ido ¡E rt1 z o
frr

.28 A{! -øç .= q) 2
.l-¡ l¡r

i-¡

o

c)õ

l7
18

I9
20

2l
22
23

24
25

26 27
28

GaseS:08-cv-03452-RMW Documentl6

Filed 09/1912008 Page 3 of 3

1

THIS IS TO CERTTTY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
Guido Saveri [e-mail] Kimberly Ann-Ifualòívec kkralowec@,schubertlawfirm.com Leo Patrick Norton lnorton@cooleviom Willem F. [e-mail]

2
a

J 4
5

6 7
8

Dated: September 19, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By:
/s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Depufy

9
10

¡r

11

r ,Ë'= v\

T2

.|.)= 9ã '.1 I
ir¡

l3
t4
15

.28 A -uÀ= .Ã oË Ë)F
l¡o (t1 7

o

ro) õõ
+¡
rr

o

t6

I7
18

t9
20

2I
22
23

24
25

26 27 28

ExHIBIT

C

Case5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document20

Filed 09/2912008 Page 1 of 3

I
2
J
a

4
5

E-FILED

on

09/29/08

6

8

IN THE I.INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

l0

SAN JOSE DIVISION

1i .9
L

ll
t2 DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf No. C-08-02088 RMW of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE
CASES [Re Docket No. 16]
13

c)e -c)

.t) t<

l4
v.
15

9ììi() aD -É Ë

rt l-)

16 17
18

Google,INC., a Delaware Corporation; and Does I through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

EA) Éc
¡r

t9
20

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.

2l
22
¿J

Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-3369 JW. All pafties agreethatthe 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.

24
25

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

26 27
28

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

Case 5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document20

Filed 09/2912008 Page 2 of 3

1

proposed classes in,RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte. ,See Joint Opp'n to Mot. to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, 2-3.

2
a

J

This order only determines that Almeida is not related to RK West, Pulaski & Middleman,
and

4
5

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.

6 7
8

Accordingly, the court denies defendant's motion to relate.

DATED:

09129/08

9

l0
f,9
c)e
L

WHYTE United States District Judge

ll
t2
13 14

uy
-o U)' 9ìhFo) (5 r
PZ,

u) s)

l5
t6

EC.)
9r

t7
18

l9
20

2l
22
¿J

24 25

26
27 28

JAS

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

2

Case 5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document20

Filed 09i2912008 Page 3 of 3

I ¿
a J

Notice of this document has been electronicallv sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Daralyn J. Durie David Jason
[e-mail] [e-mail]

4
5

Silben Ryan MarshallKent
Bertenthal

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6

Alyse Deborah Leo Patrick

Norton

[e-mail]

8

Counsel for Defendants:
9

l0
L

Alfredo Torijos
Brian S. Kabateck

[e-mail] [e-mail]

ll
12
13

Qy
c)v |r:c) at) , tt
11

o-q

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.

I4

Dated:

09/29/08

.IAS

Ø4 -E PZ,

t¿ìi()

l5
t6 t7
18

Chambers of Judge Whyte

tra) ÐF
Í-

l9
20

2l
22
¿J

24
25

26 27 28

JAS

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

3