Locsin et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 4

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed by Jennifer Locsin. (Terrell, Reginald) (Filed on 8/26/2010) Modified on 8/26/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF).

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

DONALD AMAMGBO, ESQ. AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] REGINALD TERRELL, ESQ. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148 Oakland, California 94661 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This Document Relates to: ) ) JENNIFER LOCSIN and JAMES ) BLACKWELL, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated, ) Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al. Defendant.

CASE NO.: 5:10-md-02184-JW-PVT MDL NO.: 2184 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 5:10-MD-03272-PVT

______________________________________________________________________________________

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 5:10-MD-02184-JW-PVT 1

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

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, Plaintiffs Jennifer Locsin and James Blackwell submit this administrative motion for the Court to consider whether Locsin v. Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-03272-PVT, filed in this district on July 26, 2010, should be related to In Re: Google Inc. StreetView Electronic Communications Litigation ("In re Google"), No. 5:10-md-02184-JW, the earlier filed action also pending in this District. The Locsin action has been preliminarily assigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. The following cases appear on the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's case listing report for In Re Google: Berlage v. Google, Inc., 5:10-cv-02187 (N.D.Cal.); Sedita v. Google, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-03286 (N.D.Cal.); Stokes v. Google Inc., 5:10-cv02306 (N.D.Cal.); Redstone et al v. Google, Inc., 5:10-cv-03639 (N.D.Cal.); Reyas v. Google, Inc., 5:10-cv-03215 (N.D.Cal.); Locsin v. Google, Inc., 5:10-cv-03272 (N.D.Cal.); Benitti v. Google, Inc., 5:10-cv-03297 (N.D.Cal.); Colman v. Google, Inc., 1:10-877 (D.D.C.); Keyes v. Google, Inc., 1:10-896 (D.D.C.); Galaxy Internet Servs., Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1:10-10871 (D.Mass.); Van Valin v. Google, Inc., 3:10-557 (D.Or.); Carter v. Google, Inc., 2:10-2649 (E.D.Pa.); Mulholland v. Google, Inc., 2:10-cv-02787 (E.D.Pa.). Under Local Rule 3-12(a), actions are related when: "[t]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and [i]t 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." Here, both criteria are met. The Locsin and In Re Google actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event. Both are proposed class actions brought on behalf of persons whose wireless internet network data was intercepted by Google's Street View vehicles. The actions
______________________________________________________________________________________

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 5:10-MD-02184-JW-PVT 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

feature similar claims based on Google's alleged collection of the data and that Google violated the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq. Given the overlapping class definitions, common defendant, and like allegations, adjudication of these actions separately would create an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expenses. Assignment of these cases to a single United States District Court Judge will conserve judicial resources and eliminate the potential for conflicting results. The actions are at a preliminary stage and, thus, assignment to a single judge would not prejudice any of the parties. Plaintiffs Jennifer Locsin and James Blackwell therefore respectfully request that Locsin v. Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-03272-PVT and In Re Google, No. 5:10-md-02184-JW be deemed related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 26, 2010 THE TERRELL LAW GROUP AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES /s/________________________ REGINALD TERRELL, ESQ.

DONALD AMAMGBO, ESQ. AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900 Oakland, California 94621 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] REGINALD TERRELL, ESQ. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148 Oakland, California 94661 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

______________________________________________________________________________________

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 5:10-MD-02184-JW-PVT 3