Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 18

MOTION to Consolidate Cases 13-CV-05996 and 14-CV-00307 filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. Responses due by 4/4/2014. Replies due by 4/11/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael W. Sobol, # 2 Exhibit A to Sobol Declaration, # 3 Declaration Hank Bates, # 4 Exhibit A to Bates Declaration, # 5 Declaration Jeremy Lieberman, # 6 Exhibit A to Lieberman Declaration, # 7 Proposed Order)(Gardner, Melissa) (Filed on 3/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
Attorneys for Plaintiff David
Shadpour

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Matthew Campbell and Michael
Hurley

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
22

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

23
24

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL

v.

25

Case No. C 13-5996 PJH

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Judge:

Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

Defendant.

26
27
28
1163838.1

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

I, Michael W. Sobol, declare as follows:

2

I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and a partner in

3

the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“LCHB”), counsel for

4

the plaintiffs in Campbell et al. v. Facebook, Inc., and, along with Carney Bates &

5

Pulliam, PLLC and Pomerantz LLC, proposed Interim Class Counsel in the

6

consolidated proceedings. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

7

herein, and could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so.

8

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE

9

LCHB is one of the oldest, largest, most respected, and most successful law

10

firms in the country representing plaintiffs in class actions. LCHB has been

11

repeatedly recognized over the years as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms in the

12

country by both The National Law Journal and The American Lawyer. See, e.g.,

13

The Plaintiffs’ Hot List, National Law Journal (Oct. 1, 2013) (LCHB has received

14

this same award each year from 2003 through 2013); J. Triedman, A New Lieff,

15

The American Lawyer (Dec. 2006), at 13 (“one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’

16

firms”); A. Frankel, Sweet Sixteen, Litigation 2004, Supplement to The American

17

Lawyer & Corporate Counsel (Dec. 2004), at 8-10.

18

LCHB has litigated hundreds of consumer class actions, and has significant

19

experience in litigating to vindicate the privacy rights of consumers. For example,

20

LCHB has held leadership positions in the following cases brought under the

21

Wiretap Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act:

22

•

23

Litigation, No. 3:10-md-021784-CRB (N.D. Cal.). LCHB, along with

24

co-counsel, represents plaintiffs in a class action alleging that Google

25

intentionally equipped its Google Maps “Street View” vehicles with

26

Wi-Fi antennas and software that collected data transmitted by Wi-Fi

27

networks located in homes within range of the vehicles’ receptors.

28

Google collected not only basic identifying information about
1163838.1

In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications

-1-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

individuals’ Wi-Fi networks, but also personal, private data being

2

transmitted over their Wi-Fi networks such as emails, usernames,

3

passwords, videos, and documents. Plaintiffs allege that Google’s

4

actions violated the federal Wiretap Act. On September 10, 2013, the

5

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Plaintiffs that Google’s

6

actions are not exempt from the Wiretap Act.

7

•

8

represents plaintiffs in class action litigation alleging that Carrier IQ,

9

Inc., and other smartphone manufacturers have violated the Wiretap

In re Carrier IQ Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2330. LCHB

10

Act and other privacy laws by installing Carrier IQ’s user tracking

11

software, called IQ Agent, on millions of cell phones and other mobile

12

devices that use the Android operating system. Without notifying

13

users or obtaining consent, IQ Agent records and transmits user data,

14

including personally identifiable information, to cellular carriers. The

15

data are then analyzed and segmented, including by equipment and

16

subscriber identification numbers. IQ Agent cannot be removed and

17

cannot be detected by users lacking advanced computing skills.
LCHB has vindicated the rights of and recovered hundreds of millions of

18
19

dollars for consumers in other class litigation, as well, including the results in the

20

following consumer protection cases:

21

•

22

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 07-05923 WHA (N.D. Cal.), a

23

class action alleging unfair practices and false representations by Wells

24

Fargo in connection with its imposition of overdraft charges.

25

Following a two week bench trial, an appeal, and subsequent post-

26

appeal proceedings, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup

27

awarded $203 million in restitution to the certified class. For our work

28

in the case, the Consumer Attorneys of California named myself and
1163838.1

LCHB serves as Co-Class Counsel and Lead Trial Counsel in

-2-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

my partner Richard M. Heimann as Finalists for the Consumer

2

Attorney of the Year Award.

3

•

4

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Chase Bank USA, N.A.

5

“Check Loan” Contract Litigation, MDL No. 2032 (N.D. Cal.), a

6

Multi-District, nationwide class action charging that Chase violated the

7

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by modifying the terms

8

of fixed rate loans. In 2012, after the class was certified, U.S. District

9

Judge Maxine M. Chesney approved a $100 million class-wide

LCHB serves as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and on the

10

settlement.

11

•

12

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fla.), a

13

Multi-District Litigation involving actions against more than two

14

dozen national banks, where the banks are alleged to have engaged in

15

practices resulting in the imposition of excessive overdraft charges.

16

Settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars have been reached

17

in the litigation, including a $410 million settlement involving Bank of

18

America, which was approved by the presiding Court.

19

•

20

of federal court cases against some of the nation’s largest credit card

21

issuers, challenging the imposition of charges for so-called “payment

22

protection” or “credit protection” programs.

23

•

24

Multi-District Litigation, In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales

25

Practices Litigation, No. 04-CV-10739-PBS (D. Mass.), arising out of

26

the sale and marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin. LCHB was

27

also Of Counsel to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser

28

Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) in the litigation. On March 25, 2010,
1163838.1

LCHB serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re

LCHB, along with co-counsel, represents consumers in a series

LCHB served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the

-3-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

a jury determined that Pfizer Inc. violated federal antiracketeering law

2

by promoting Neurontin for unapproved uses and found Pfizer liable to

3

Kaiser for damages of up to $142 million. On November 3, 2010, the

4

Court found Pfizer liable under California’s Unfair Competition Law,

5

ordering it to pay restitution to Kaiser of approximately $95 million.

6

•

7

consumer class action challenging Progressive Corporation’s private

8

passenger automobile insurance sales practices, Kline v. The

9

Progressive Corporation, Circuit No. 02-L-6 (Circuit Court of the

10

First Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Illinois). In 2002, the Court

11

approved a settlement valued at approximately $450 million, which

12

included both cash and equitable relief.

13

•

14

Catholic Healthcare West (“CHW”) in Catholic Healthcare West

15

Cases, JCCP No. 4453 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Plaintiff alleged that CHW

16

charged uninsured patients excessive fees for treatment and services.

17

In January 2007, the Court approved a settlement that provides

18

discounts, refunds and other benefits for CHW patients valued at $423

19

million.

20

•

21

Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, JCCP No. 4388 (Cal. Supr. Ct.).

22

Plaintiffs alleged that they and a class of uninsured patients treated at

23

Sutter hospitals were overcharged for treatment and services. In

24

December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a settlement,

25

which included changes of practices and allowed class members to

26

claim refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45% of their prior

27

hospital bills, at an estimated total value of $276 million.

LCHB served as Settlement Class Counsel in a nationwide

LCHB served as lead counsel in a coordinated action against

LCHB served as Lead Counsel in the coordinated action, Sutter

28
1163838.1

-4-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

•

2

settlement class of Providian credit cardholders who alleged that

3

Providian had engaged in widespread misconduct by charging

4

cardholders unlawful, excessive interest and late charges, and by

5

promoting and selling to cardholders “add-on products” promising

6

illusory benefits and services, in Providian Credit Card Cases, JCCP

7

No. 4085 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). In November 2001, the Court

8

granted final approval to a $105 million settlement of the case, which

9

also required Providian to implement substantial changes to its

LCHB served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified national

10

business practices.

11

•

12

numerous cases alleging predatory lending and unfair mortgage

13

practices. In Reverse Mortgage Cases, JCCP No. 4061 (San Mateo

14

County Super. Ct., Cal.), LCHB served as co-lead counsel in an action

15

against Transamerica Corporation and its subsidiary, who sold

16

“reverse mortgages” to seniors which were misleading as to the loan

17

terms, including the existence and amount of certain charges and fees.

18

LCHB also represented a class of consumers in Citigroup Loan Cases

19

(J.C.C.P. No. 4197, San Francisco Superior Court) against a “sub-

20

prime” lender for cramming unwanted and unnecessary insurance

21

products on to mortgage loans and engaging in improper loan

22

refinancing practices. A court-approved settlement of the case

23

provided $240 million in relief to the nationwide class. LCHB was

24

also co-lead counsel in Curry v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation (D.

25

Mass., No. 03-10895-DPW), where a nationwide settlement provided

26

$55 million and injunctive relief to the class.

27

•

28

insurance industry litigation, a series of California lawsuits which
1163838.1

Over the past several years, LCHB has successfully litigated

I also served as plaintiffs’ counsel in the California title

-5-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

alleged, among other things, that the title companies received interest

2

payments on customer escrow funds that were never reimbursed to

3

their customers. The defendant companies included Lawyers’ Title

4

Insurance, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, Stewart Title

5

Insurance of California, First American Title Insurance, Fidelity

6

National Title Insurance, and Chicago Title Insurance. In coordination

7

with parallel litigation brought by the Attorney General, we reached

8

settlements in 2003 and 2004 with the leading title insurance

9

companies in California, resulting in historic industry-wide changes to

10

the practice of providing escrow services in real estate closings. The

11

settlements brought a total of $50 million in restitution to California

12

consumers, including cash payments.
I am a 1989 graduate of Boston University School of Law. I practiced law in

13
14

Massachusetts from 1989 to 1997. From 1995 through 1997, I was a Lecturer in

15

Law at Boston University School of Law. In 1997, I left my position as partner in

16

the Boston firm of Shafner, Gilleran & Mortensen, P.C. to move to San Francisco,

17

where I joined LCHB. Since joining LCHB in 1997, I have almost exclusively

18

represented plaintiffs in consumer protection class actions. I have been a partner

19

with LCHB since 1999. I am in my thirteenth year as chair of LCHB’s consumer

20

practice group, and as such am involved in and oversee a wide range of consumer

21

protection litigation. I have served as plaintiffs’ class counsel in numerous

22

nationwide consumer class action cases.
Rachel Geman is a partner at LCHB. She has represented plaintiffs in class

23
24

actions for over a decade, including as co-lead class counsel or counsel for the class

25

in consumer law matters relating to predatory lending and loan servicing, credit

26

card add-on products, false advertising, and other issues. A former plaintiff-side

27

chair of the ABA EEO Committee and Board Member of the National Employment

28

Lawyers’ Association – New York, Rachel has spoken and written on multiple
1163838.1

-6-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1

topics in class action litigation. Rachel is an AV-Preeminent rated attorney, and has

2

been recognized by Best Lawyers (2012-2014), Law 500 (2013), and Super

3

Lawyers (2011).

4

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of LCHB’s firm résumé, which

5

describes in further detail the cases referenced above, as well as some of the firm’s

6

other experience in class action and other complex litigation. As set forth therein,

7

LCHB represents plaintiffs in consumer, securities, employment, antitrust, civil

8

rights, and mass tort cases. LCHB has served as class counsel in hundreds of class

9

actions nationwide, resulting in hundreds of judgments and settlements which have

10

recovered billions of dollars for its clients.

11

THE CAMPBELL LITIGATION

12

LCHB conducted a thorough factual investigation of the issues in this

13

litigation, including talking with a substantial number of Facebook users and

14

reviewing and analyzing relevant representations made by defendants, press

15

releases, and other documents. LCHB further conducted a thorough legal analysis

16

of defendant’s practices, and thereafter filed the initial complaint in the Campbell

17

action, which was the first complaint filed that addressed the issues raised in these

18

consolidated proceedings. Since filing the Campbell action, LCHB has been

19

contacted by dozens of Facebook users who were subjected to the practices at issue

20

in these proceedings, and has documented their complaints.
Subsequent to filing the Campbell action, LCHB has worked cooperatively

21
22

with plaintiffs’ counsel in the related Shadpour action to help facilitate the

23

consolidation of these proceedings and to coordinate other related issues, and to

24

prepare and file a master consolidated complaint.
LCHB is ready, willing and able to commit the resources necessary to litigate

25
26

this case vigorously. Indeed, LCHB has already committed the time and efforts of

27

multiple attorneys and other staff members for the investigation, research, and

28

litigation of this case, and will continue to do so.
1163838.1

-7-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH

1
2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and

3

that this Declaration was signed in San Francisco, California, on March 21, 2014.

4
5
6

Michael W. Sobol

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1163838.1

-8-

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL

CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH