King v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 4

ORDER Seeking Additional Information Re: Defendant Flurry, Inc.'s Motion to Relate Case Number 11-CV-02167-PSG to Case Number 10-CV-05878-LHK. Signed by Judge Koh on 5/20/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

JULIANN KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-02167-PSG1
ORDER SEEKING ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION RE: MOTION TO
RELATE CASE NUMBER 11-CV02167-PSG TO IN RE IPHONE
APPLICATION LITIG.

On May 11, 2011, Defendant Flurry, Inc. filed a motion to relate King v. Google, et al., 11-

17

CV-02167-PSG to In Re iPhone Application Litigation, 10-CV-05878. See Dkt. #80. From the

18

Court’s review, it appears that there are overlapping causes of action and certain overlapping

19

Defendants, but there are also critical differences in the cases. For example, the King action

20

centers on devices that run Google’s Android operating system, devices not currently involved in

21

the In Re iPhone Application Litigation. Prior to ruling upon the motion to relate, however, the

22

Court seeks additional information from the parties. Specifically, the Court requests that, at the

23

May 25, 2011 hearing and case management conference in connection with the In Re iPhone

24

Application Litigation, counsel for the parties be prepared to discuss:

25

1) if the cases are related, whether the parties will seek to consolidate the cases;

26

2) Plaintiffs’ and Apple’s position on whether the cases should be related;

27
1

28

Although this matter is assigned to the Honorable Paul S. Grewal, the motion to relate
came to the undersigned’s attention as the Judge in the earliest-filed case. See Civ. L.R. 3-12(b).
1
Case No.: 11-CV-02167-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO RELATE

1

3) the overlap, if any, of the alleged class members;

2

4) how the applications work on the different operating systems, and if the applications

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

work differently on each operating system;
5) whether different licenses and disclosures are involved with respect to the different
devices and operating systems;
6) whether Plaintiffs are aware of, or anticipate, any other cases against other devices or
operating systems;
7) if the cases are not related, whether the parties will still seek a coordinated approach to
ADR and a global resolution of all the actions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: May 20, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-02167-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO RELATE