McKinney v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER RELATING CASE. The Court finds that the cases are related within the meaning of Rule 3-12(a). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall immediately relate Nathan Nabors v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03897-LHK to Mary McKinney v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01177-JW. The parties in both cases shall appear for a Case Management Conference on October 25, 2010 at 10 a.m. On or before October 15, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement. The Statement shall address whether the cases should be consolidated and if so, a schedule for nomination of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Related cases: Create association to 5:10-cv-03897-LHK. Signed by Judge James Ware on 10/8/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2010)

McKinney v. Google, Inc. et al

Doc. 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mary McKinney, Nathan Nabors, v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION / NO. C 10-01177 JW NO. C 10-03897 HRL ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RELATE CASES; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Google, Inc., et al., Defendants. /

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Nathan Nabors' Unopposed Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related. (hereafter, "Motion," CV 10-01177 JW, Docket Item No. 58.) Plaintiff seeks the Court's determination as to whether Nathan Nabors v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03897-HRL ("Second Action"), should be related to Mary McKinney v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01177-JW ("First Action"). Plaintiff contends that both cases share common Defendants, an overlapping class of Plaintiffs, concern the same questions of law, and the same facts regarding an alleged connectivity defect of the Google Phone and Defendants' lack of customer support to assist Google Phone customers in resolving this defect. (Motion at 2.) Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides: An action is related to another action when: (1) The action concerns substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (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.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Here, the Court finds the two actions involve an overlapping class of Plaintiffs that purchased the Google Phone, the same allegedly misleading statements regarding the Google Phone, and the same response by Defendants in dealing with customer complaints.1 Plaintiffs allege in both cases that Defendants' Google Phone does not properly maintain connectivity with T-Mobile's 3G wireless network. (See id.) Both cases allege similar causes of action, and thus involve the same issues of law relating to breach of warranty and violations of the Federal Communications Act. (Id.) The Court also finds that the two actions pose a substantial risk of inconsistent judgments. In light of the substantial similarity of parties and events, the Court finds that there is a risk of "an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges." Thus, the Court finds that the cases are related within the meaning of Rule 312(a). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall immediately relate Nathan Nabors v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03897-HRL to Mary McKinney v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01177-JW. The parties in both cases shall appear for a Case Management Conference on October 25, 2010 at 10 a.m. On or before October 15, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement. The Statement shall address whether the cases should be consolidated and if so, a schedule for nomination of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: October 8, 2010

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

(Compare Class Action Complaint, 10-cv-03897, Docket Item No. 1 with Class Action Complaint, 10-cv-01177-JW, Docket Item No. 2.) 2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Edith M. Kallas [e-mail] James Condon Grant [e-mail] Joe R. Whatley [e-mail] Joseph Edward Addiego [e-mail] Matthew Lloyd Larrabee [e-mail] Patrick J. Sheehan [e-mail] Rosemarie Theresa Ring [e-mail] Sara Dawn Avila [e-mail] Wayne Scott Kreger [e-mail]

Dated: October 8, 2010

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

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28