Veith v. Linkedin Corporation

Filing 10

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Consolidate Cases; Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel. All future filings shall be in 5:12-cv-03088 EJD and shall bear the caption: In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation. The hearing and Case Management Conference cu rrently scheduled for 8/31/2012 are VACATED. The court will file an order addressing scheduling issues forthwith. Within 21 days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiffs shall filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/29/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

CANDYCE PARAGGUA
12

SCOTT SHEPHERD
/

13
SAM VEITH
14
15

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03088 EJD
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03422 EJD
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03430 EJD
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03557 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE; APPOINTING INTERIM
LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

/
KATIE SZPYRKA,
[Docket Item No(s). 12]

16
Plaintiff(s),
17
18

v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION,

19
Defendant(s).
/

20
21

Plaintiffs Katie Szpyrka, Candyce Paraggua, Scott Shepherd and Sam Veith (collectively,

22

“Plaintiffs”) filed separate actions in this court on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

23

situated against Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“Defendant”) for, inter alia, violations of

24

California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq., California Business and Professions

25

Code §§ 17500 et. seq., breach of contract, and negligence.1 On July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a joint

26
1

27
28

The Szpyrka action is case number 5:12-cv-03088 EJD. The Paraggua, Shepherd and Veith
actions were assigned case numbers 5:12-cv-03430 EJD, 5:12-cv-03422 EJD and 5:12-cv-03557
EJD, respectively. The court related these actions and ordered them reassigned to one district judge
on August 22, 2012. See Docket Item No. 38.
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03088 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; APPOINTING INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

1

motion to consolidate the four actions and to appoint counsel for Szpyrka as interim lead counsel for

2

the purported class, with counsel for Shepherd designated as liason class counsel. See Docket Item

3

No. 12. Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion on July 30, 2012. See Docket

4

Item No. 24.

5

Having reviewed the material relevant to this matter, the court finds Plaintiffs’ unopposed

6

motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

7

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 31, 2012, will be vacated and the motion will be

8

granted based on the terms which follow.
I.

9

CONSOLIDATION

The district court may consolidate actions involving common questions of law and fact. Fed.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). The court exercises “broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be

12

tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while

13

providing justice to the parties.” Morin v. Turpin, 778 F. Supp. 711, 733 (S.D.N.Y 1991) (citing 6

14

C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1471, at 359 (1971)). In exercising this

15

discretion, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any

16

inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704

17

(9th Cir. 1984). Consolidation may occur upon motion by a party or sua sponte. In re Adams

18

Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987).

19

Upon review of the complaints in each of the actions presented here, the court finds that each

20

case presents virtually identical factual and legal issues. The plaintiffs allege in each action that

21

Defendant failed to adequately protect user data unauthorized access by network hackers and raise

22

the same causes of action. The four actions are in the same procedural stage as Defendnat has not

23

yet filed an answer or responsive motion. Moreover, since the claims for each case arise from the

24

same nucleus of activity, discovery issues relating to each action will be parallel. Based on the

25

circumstances presented, there is no basis to find that consolidation would cause inconvenience,

26

delay or expense, especially since Paraggua, Shepherd and Veith seemingly agree with the

27

consolidation request. As such, the court finds consolidation appropriate. The joint motion of will

28

therefore be granted.
2
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03088 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; APPOINTING INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

1

I.

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class

4

action.” “Instances in which interim class counsel is appointed are those in which overlapping,

5

duplicative, or competing class suits are pending before a court, so that appointment of interim

6

counsel is necessary to protect the interests of class members.” White v. TransUnion, LLC, 239

7

F.R.D. 681, 683 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11 (2004)).

8

Although Rule 23(g)(3) does not provide a standard for appointment of interim counsel, the court

9

may consider the factors contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1). Under that section,

10

the court considers: “(I) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in

11
For the Northern District of California

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the court “may designate interim

3

United States District Court

2

the action; (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types

12

of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the

13

resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(g)(1)(A). The

14

court may also “consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately

15

represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(g)(1)(B).

16

Here, Szpyrka is represented by Jay Edelson of Edelson McGuire LLP and as is evident from

17

the motion papers, the firm is experienced in class action litigation and, in particular, in class action

18

litigation involving technology and privacy. For this case, Edelson McGuire has conducted

19

investigation of the potential class action claims, has taken a leadership role among counsel for the

20

other plaintiffs, and has contacted Defendant’s counsel concerning future protection of user privacy.

21

The proposed liaison class counsel, Laurence King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, has similar

22

experience in class action litigation.

23

Having reviewed the papers filed for this motion in the context of Rule 23, the court finds

24

that Jay Edelson of Edelson Mcguire LLP is qualified to represent the putative class, and that

25

Laurence King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is qualified to serve as liaison class counsel.

26

Accordingly, the court appoints them as designated.
II.

27
28

ORDER

Based on the foregoing discussion:
3
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03088 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; APPOINTING INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

1

1.

The motion to consolidate and appoint interim lead class counsel (Docket Item No.

2

12) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall consolidate case numbers 5:12-cv-

3

03088 EJD; 5:12-cv-03430 EJD, 5:12-cv-03422 EJD and 5:12-cv-03557 EJD into

4

one case such that the earliest-filed action, 5:12-cv-03088 EJD, is the lead case. All

5

future filings shall be in 5:12-cv-03088 EJD and shall bear the caption: “In re

6

LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation.” All future related cases shall be automatically

7

consolidated and administratively closed after a judicial determination that such cases

8

are related. Since the later actions are now subsumed by the first-filed action, the

9

Clerk shall administratively close case numbers 5:12-cv-03430 EJD, 5:12-cv-03422

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

EJD and 5:12-cv-03557 EJD.
2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Interim Lead Class Counsel is GRANTED.

12

The court appoints Jay Edelson of Edelson Mcguire LLP as Interim Lead Class

13

Counsel for the putative class. Laurence King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is

14

appointed as liaison class counsel.

15

3.

The hearing on the motion and the Case Management Conference currently scheduled

16

for August 31, 2012, are VACATED. The court will file an order addressing

17

scheduling issues forthwith.

18
19

4.

Within 21 days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiffs in In re LinkedIn User Privacy
Litigation shall filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: August 29, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03088 EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; APPOINTING INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL