Smith, et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING 39 MOTION to Relate Case filed by James R. Pittman. Related cases: Create association to 5:08-cv-05375-JW.Motions terminated: 39 MOTION to Relate Case filed by James R. Pittman. Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/2/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2009)

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

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff James R. Pittman

F D IS T IC T O R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ER

N

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES R. PITTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. C 08-05375 JW Case No. C 09-01028 RS CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED ORDER RELATED CASES

TO DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff James R. Pittman submits this administrative motion to consider whether cases should be related pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 312. The following pending action is related to the present action - Pittman v. Apple, Inc., Case No. C 08-05375 JW - within the meaning of Local Rule 3-12(a): (1) Smith v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. C09-01028 RS, filed in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on August 19, 2008, and transferred to the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on March 12, 2009.
1

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

A

C

LI

FO

m Judge Ja

es Ware

R NIA

Gordon M. Fauth, Jr. (Cal. Bar No. 190280) [e-mail] LITIGATION LAW GROUP 1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101 Alameda, California 94501 Telephone [phone] Facsimile [phone]

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

O ORD IT IS S

ERED

RT U O

NO

RT

H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

The two actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event, within the meaning of Local Rule 3-12(a)(1). The cases are both putative nation-wide class actions brought against the same defendant - Apple, Inc. - on behalf of users of the Apple iPhone 3G. Both complaints allege that the iPhone 3G was defective when used as intended and that, contrary to representations made, it did not provide reliable 3G data speeds or functionality, and subjected users to poor performance and inordinate numbers of dropped calls. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a)(2), it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. Therefore, the cases should be ordered related. Respectfully submitted, LITIGATION LAW GROUP

Date: March 20, 2009

By: _____/S/ Gordon M. Fauth, Jr._____ Gordon M. Fauth, Jr. 1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101 Alameda, California 94501 Telephone [phone] Facsimile [phone] Attorney for Individual and Representative Plaintiff James R. Pittman

*** ORDER ***
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

The Court finds C 09-1028 RS related to C 08-5375 JW within the meaning of Civ. L.R. 3-12. Accordingly, the Clerk shall relate the cases. Counsels are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number.

Dated: April 2, 2009

__________________________ JAMES WARE United States District Judge

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED