Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
14
MOTION to Relate Case filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Jessen, Joshua) (Filed on 1/29/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
OAKLAND DIVISON
11
12
13
MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
14
First Filed Case: No. C 13-05996 PJH
Related Case:
No. C 14-00307 PSG
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
15
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO RELATE CASES
v.
16
FACEBOOK, INC.,
The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
17
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE CASES
First Filed Case No. C 13-05996 PJH; Related Case No. C 14-00307 PSG
1
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2013, plaintiffs Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley
2
initiated this putative class action against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), alleging violations of federal
3
and state law in connection with the purported scanning of URLs in private messages between
4
Facebook users (the “Campbell Action”);
5
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, plaintiff David Shadpour filed a separate putative class
6
action in this District against Facebook predicated on substantially similar facts and substantive
7
allegations, and asserting the same state law claims as the Campbell Complaint, captioned Shadpour
8
v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:14-00307-PSG (the “Shadpour Action”); and
9
WHEREAS, the undersigned parties agree that the Campbell Action and Shadpour Action are
10
related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) because “(1) [t]he actions concern substantially the same
11
parties, property, transaction, or event; and (2) [i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly
12
burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before
13
different Judges.”
14
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-12, and subject to the
15
approval of the Court, the parties hereby stipulate that the Campbell Action and Shadpour Action are
16
related and request that the Court enter an order reassigning the second-filed Shadpour Action to the
17
Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, who is overseeing the first-filed Campbell Action.
18
Respectfully submitted,
19
20
DATED: January 29, 2014
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
21
By:
22
/s/
JOSHUA A. JESSEN
23
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
24
Joshua A. Jessen, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
Jeana Bisnar Maute, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
Jessica S. Ou, SBN 280534
JOu@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
1
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE CASES
First Filed Case No. C 13-05996 PJH; Related Case No. C 14-00307 PSG
1
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
2
Christopher Chorba, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
3
4
5
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
6
7
DATED: January 29, 2014
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
8
9
By:
/s/ Michael Sobol
MICHAEL W. SOBOL
10
11
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
12
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
13
14
15
16
20
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
21
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
22
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
17
18
19
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MATTHEW CAMPBELL AND
MICHAEL HURLEY
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE CASES
First Filed Case No. C 13-05996 PJH; Related Case No. C 14-00307 PSG
1
DATED: January 29, 2014
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
2
3
By:
/s/ Lionel Glancy
LIONEL Z. GLANCY
4
5
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
6
Lionel Z. Glancy
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
7
8
9
POMERANTZ LLP
10
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212-661-1100
Facsimile: 212-661-8665
11
12
13
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
14
15
16
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID SHADPOUR
(Case No. 5:14-00307-PSG )
18
19
20
21
22
23
ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, I, Joshua A. Jessen, hereby attest that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from Michael W. Sobol and Lionel Z. Glancy.
DATED: January 29, 2014
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
24
25
By:
/s/
JOSHUA A. JESSEN
26
27
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE CASES
First Filed Case No. C 13-05996 PJH; Related Case No. C 14-00307 PSG
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Having considered the parties’ Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby
3
GRANTS the parties’ Stipulation. The Campbell Action and Shadpour Action are related under Civil
4
Local Rule 3-12(a), and the Shadpour Action therefore is reassigned to this Court pursuant to Civil
5
Local Rule 3-12(f).
6
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
DATED: __________________________
______________________________________
The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RELATE CASES
First Filed Case No. C 13-05996 PJH; Related Case No. C 14-00307 PSG
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?