Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 24

Unopposed Administrative MOTION to Have Cases Related (C09-1064RS) filed by Apple, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 5/15/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Counts, Thomas) (Filed on 5/8/2009) Text Modified on 5/12/2009 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 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

DAVID M. WALSH (SB# 120761) [e-mail] PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] THOMAS A. COUNTS (SB# 148051) [e-mail] ERIC A. LONG (SB# 244147) [e-mail] PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 55 Second Street Twent y-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARAM HOVSEPIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaint iff, vs. APPLE INC. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant.

CASE NO. C 08-05788 JF CASE NO. TO BE RELATED: C 09-01064 RS DEFENDANT APPLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HAVE CASES RELATED [CIVIL L.R. 3-12 AND 7-11]

ROMAN HUF, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaint iff, vs. APPLE INC., Defendant.

Complaint Filed: December 31, 2008 Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Case No. C 08-05788 JF

APPLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MTN. TO HAVE CASES RELATED

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 I.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") requests an order from this Court that the following pending actions are related: Aram Hovsepian v. Apple Inc., Case No. C 08-05788 JF, and Roman Huf v. Apple Inc., Case No. C 09-01064 RS. These actions are related pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 because they invo lve substantially the same transaction or event. Relat ing the cases will avoid unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense, as well as the risk of conflicting results. Pursuant to L.R. 7 11(a), counsel for Apple has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Roman Huf regarding this motion, and Huf's counsel does not oppose the relating of the two cases. This Motion is based on Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11; this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Relating Cases, filed concurrently herewith; and the pleadings, papers and other documents on file in this action and in the Huf v. Apple action along with any evidence and argument presented at the hearing in this matter. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Hovsepian v. Apple ("Hovsepian Act ion") and the recently-filed case, Huf v. Apple ( "Huf Act ion"), involve allegations relating to the same alleged defect (vertical lines in the computer display) in the same computer (Apple's iMac). Further, both cases involve plaintiffs who experienced the alleged defect after the expiration of the identical limited one-year warranty. 1
On December 31, 2008, Plaintiff Aram Hovsepian filed a class action complaint against Apple alleging, among other things, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (the "UCL"), breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff Hovsepian alleges that he experienced "vertical lines" on the display screen of his iMac after Apple's limited, oneyear warranty expired. (Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 8-12, 52.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 17, 2009. Apple's response is due by June 1, 2009. No discovery has taken place in the Hovsepian Action. On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff Roman Huf filed a class action complaint against Apple alleging similar causes of action. Plaintiff Huf also alleges he experienced "vertical lines" on the display screen of his iMac after Apple's limited, one-year warranty expired. (Huf Cmplt. at ¶¶ 1, 26-29.) On May 4, 2009, Apple filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the Huf complaint. The Huf Action has been assigned to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg. (Docket No. 1.) On May 8, 2009, concurrently with this motion, Apple filed a declination to proceed before a magistrate judge and requested reassignment to a United States District Court Judge. No discovery has taken place in the Huf Action.
1

-1Case No. C 08-05788 JF

APPLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MTN. TO HAVE CASES RELATED

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

Finally, on May 4, 2009, counsel for Apple contacted counsel for Huf and requested that plaintiff stipulate to deeming the Hovsepian and Huf Actions related. (Counts Decl. at ¶ 5.) Counsel for Huf did not object to the cases being deemed related. Id. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT The Hovsepian Act ion and the Huf Action concern the same defendant, virtually identical transactions, overlapping putative class periods, and overlapping causes of action. Both actions involve allegations of the same alleged defect in the same type of computer. (Hovsepian & Huff Cmplts. at ¶ 1.) In addition, both actions allege that plaintiffs experienced these same defects after the expiration of Apple's limited, one-year warranty. (Hovsepian Cmplt. at ¶ 15; Huf Cmplt. at ¶¶ 26-29.) The class periods overlap. (Hovsepian Cmplt. at ¶ 32; Huf Cmplt. at ¶ 5.) Finally, both actions allege violations of the UCL and unjust enrichment. (Hovsepian Cmplt. at ¶¶ 56-71, 86-95; Huf Cmplt. at ¶¶ 39-45, 54-59.) In addition, it is likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense if the cases are conducted before different judges. Having two different judges govern discovery disputes relat ing to the same allegations would be unduly burdensome. See Fin. Fusion, Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97911, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006) (relating two actions because "different judges govern[ing] discovery disputes [related to similar issues] . . . would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor[.]") Finally, there is a risk of conflicting results if the cases are not related. Id. III. CONCLUSION Apple respectfully requests that the Court order the Huf Action be deemed related to the Hovsepian Action. DATED: May 8, 2009 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By:

/s/ Thomas A. Counts THOMAS A. COUNTS

Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
LEGAL_US_W # 61491419.4

-2Case No. C 08-05788 JF

APPLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED ADMIN. MTN. TO HAVE CASES RELATED