Benitti v. Google, Inc.
Administrative Motion to Relate the Benitti Case to C10-2187 JW Benitti is a potential "tag-along action" in the matter of In re: Google, Inc., Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, MDL No. 2184 JW Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 filed by Benitti (Filed on 8/25/2010) Modified on 8/26/2010 (bw, COURT STAFF). Modified text on 8/26/2010 (cv, COURT STAFF).
Benitti v. Google, Inc.
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
J. Paul Gignac, State Bar No. 125676 ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP 115 S. La Cumbre Lane, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, California 93105 Telephone: (805) 683-7400 Facsimile: (805) 683-7401 Email: email@example.com
Robert W. Killorin, Esq. Craig G. Harley, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 1230 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-3900 Facsimile: (404) 876-4476 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ric Benitti
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
MATTHEW BERLAGE, AARON LINSKY and JAMES FAIRBANKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. RIC BENITTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, Defendants.
Case No. CV 10-02187 JW CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE THE BENITTI CASE PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12 The Honorable James Ware
Case No. CV 10-03297 PVT CLASS ACTION
The Honorable Patricia V. Trumbull
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE THE BENITTI CASE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff Ric Benitti ("Plaintiff") submits this administrative motion, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, to relate Benitti v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-03297 PVT ("Benitti") to Berlage, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-02187 JW. A copy of the Benitti complaint is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of J. Paul Gignac. A. THE RELATED ACTIONS The cases listed below are related to the Benitti action: 1. 2. 3. Berlage, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-02187 JW ("Berlage"); Stokes, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-02306 JW ("Stokes"); and Sedita v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-03286 JW ("Sedita").
Sedita, like Benitti, was originally assigned to the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbull, but recently was related to Berlage and reassigned to this Court in an order entered on August 11, 2010. B. RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACTIONS This administrative motion is made on the grounds that both Berlage and Benitti, as well as Stokes and Sedita, are cases that involve a substantially similar subject matter -- namely: an alleged violation by defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, et seq. (the "Federal Wiretap Act"). Civil Local Rule 3-12 provides that actions are related when:
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 violated the Federal Wiretap Act by engaging in the unauthorized interception of electronic -1ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE THE BENITTI CASE
The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and 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.
The cases sought to be related by this administrative motion satisfy both criteria of Rule 3-12. Both Berlage and Benitti, as well as Stokes and Sedita, are cases alleging that Google
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
communications in connection with the gathering of information for use in Google's "Street View" program. The primary remedies that are sought in each of the cases are the same: injunctive relief and statutory damages. The defendant in each case (Google) is the same. Therefore, there likely will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor, as well as the potential for conflicting rulings on the same issues, if these cases remain assigned to different judges. Moreover, Benitti is a potential "tag-along action" in the matter of In re: Google, Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, MDL No. 2184, which was recently ordered assigned to this Court. It is expected that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") will be issuing a Conditional Transfer Order for the purpose of consolidating or coordinating Benitti with the eight (8) other cases that are the subject of the JPML's August 17, 2010 Transfer Order. Therefore, an administrative order relating Benitti to Berlage should be issued by this Court in advance of and in anticipation of the JPML's Conditional Transfer Order. C. CONCLUSION Benitti and Berlage, as well as Stokes and Sedita, satisfy the criteria of Civil Local Rule 3-12. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Benitti be deemed related to Berlage and that Benitti be reassigned to the Honorable James Ware. Dated: August 25, 2010. Respectfully submitted, ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
23 24 25 26 27 28 -2ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE THE BENITTI CASE
/s/ J. Paul Gignac and
CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?