"In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation."

Filing 18

Motion to Consider Whether Case C09-3862 RMW Should be Related to C09-1911 JW filed by Apple, Inc.. (Muhlbach, Andrew) (Filed on 9/4/2009) Modified on 9/8/2009 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 18

Case5:09-cv-01911-JW Document18

Filed09/04/09 Page1 of 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

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607) ([e-mail]) ANDREW D. MUHLBACH (CA SBN 175694) ([e-mail]) ANNE M. HUNTER (CA SBN 221455) ([e-mail]) ALEXEI KLESTOFF (CA SBN 224016) ([e-mail]) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

NAOTAKA KITAGAWA, JR., TIMOTHY J. BROAD and JESSE REISMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-cv-01911-JW ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED LOCAL RULE 3-12

APPLE, INC., and, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants

Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby moves pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(b) for a determination that Tracey Hackwith, et al. v. Apple Inc., Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 09-cv-03862 RMW ("Hackwith"), is a "related case" to Naotaka Kitagawa, et al. v. Apple Inc., Northern District of California, San Jose, Case No. 09-cv-01911 JW ("Kitagawa"), within the meaning of Local Rule 3-12(a).

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 09-CV-01911 JW sf-2735644

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case5:09-cv-01911-JW Document18

Filed09/04/09 Page2 of 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

The nature of the relationship between the newly-transferred Hackwith action and the older Kitagawa action is that: (1) the cases all assert claims against the same lone defendant, Apple; (2) the putative plaintiff classes in the actions overlap; and (3) the cases require determination of the same or substantially the same questions of fact and law. Specifically, all of the actions focus on (i) allegedly defective Magsafe Power Adapters, based on manufacturing and/or design processes that allegedly result in the adapters failing when used as intended, and (ii) whether Apple knew of these alleged defects and/or improperly marketed the product.1 Due to their similarity, if not treated as related, these cases are likely to require substantial duplication of labor and expense and present a potential danger of inconsistent rulings regarding the same issues of law. Given the closely related nature of each of these cases, the treatment of these actions as related would serve the interests of judicial economy and avoid the potential for conflicting rulings. Accordingly, Apple asks this Court to enter an order relating the Hackwith action to the Kitagawa action. Dated: September 4, 2009 PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS ANDREW D. MUHLBACH ANNE M. HUNTER ALEXEI KLESTOFF MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Andrew D. Muhlbach Andrew D. Muhlbach Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.

Apple does not by this stipulated Motion concede any of the factual allegations of the cases or that certification of the putative classes is proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.

1

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 09-CV-01911 JW sf-2735644

2