SOSSIN v. GOOGLE, INC.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by GOOGLE, INC. from NJ SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIVISION, SPECIAL CIVIL PART: SUSSEX COUNTY, case number SC-153-12. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4282174) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit1, # 2 Exhibit2, # 3 Exhibit3, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(ld, ) [Transferred from New Jersey on 6/26/2012.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") hereby removes the
civil action pending in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Sussex, styled
Larry Sossin v. Google, Inc., case number SC-153-12, to the United States District Court for
the District ofNew Jersey. Defendant Google will promptly file a Notice of this Removal with
the Clerk of the Superior Court and serve the Notice on all parties.
ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1 (c), this action
is related to the following action currently pending before Judge Claire C. Cecchi in the
Newark Division: Ana Yngelmo v. Google, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00983-CCC-JAD, filed February
17, 2012. These actions are related because they assert substantially identical causes of action
against Google, they are based on essentially the same transactions and events, and Plaintiff
Larry Sossin is a member of the putative class of persons on whose behalf the first-filed
Yngelmo action was brought. Accordingly, assignment to Judge Cecchi is appropriate under
Civil Local Rule 40.1(c).
GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL JURISDICTION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Google invokes this District Court's jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (providing that defendants may remove any civil action, filed in state
court, of which the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (granting the District Courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
federal law), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (granting District Courts originaljurisdiction of all civil
actions between persons of diverse citizenship).
On March 12, 2012, prose plaintiff Larry Sossin ("Plaintiff') filed a complaint
against Google in the small claims division of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey,
County of Sussex. Because the original complaint lacked sufficient detail and did not expressly
allege a cause of action arising under federal law or satisfying the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction, Google was unable to ascertain the removability of the action from the original
complaint. A copy of the original Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Google in the
same action purportedly alleging claims for (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511; (2) violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2701; and (3) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The Amended Complaint is attached
hereto as Exhibit 2. (The top of the caption page of the Amended Complaint erroneously states
the name of this Court even though it was actually filed in the Sussex County Superior Court.)
Because all of the causes of action alleged in the Amended Complaint are based
upon violations of federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 2701, this Court has
original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
At the time of filing this action, Plaintiff was and still is a citizen of the State of
New Jersey, and Google is not a citizen of New Jersey but is a citizen of Delaware and
California due to its incorporation in Delaware and due to the location of its headquarters and
principal place of business in California. See, e.g., Ex. 2 ~~ 7-8.
The Amended Complaint seeks damages from Google in the amount of
$250,000.00. See Ex. 2, Prayer for Relief.
Because the parties have complete diversity of citizenship and because the
amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 statutory minimum for diversity jurisdiction, this
court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) is timely because this notice of
removal is filed within thirty days of Google's receipt of the Amended Complaint, the pleading
"from which it [could] first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become
Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this District
includes the New Jersey Superior Court in Sussex County, the forum in which the removed
action was pending.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of a signed stipulation and order, which
together with Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, constitute all of the process, pleadings, and/or orders that
have been served on Google in connection with this action.
ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THIS RELATED CASE
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1(a), assignment of this action to the Newark
Division of this District Court is proper because this action is being removed from the Superior
Court in Sussex County and because Plaintiff is a resident of Sussex County.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 40.1(c), assignment of this action to Judge Cecchi
in the Newark Division is proper because this action "grows out of the same transaction as [a]
case already pending in this Court" currently pending before Judge Cecchi, Ana Yngelmo v.
Google, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00983-CCC-JAD, filed February 17, 2012. These actions are related
because they assert substantially identical causes of action against Google, they are based on
essentially the same transactions and events, and Plaintiff Larry Sossin is a member of the
putative class of persons on whose behalf the prior Yngelmo action was brought. Accordingly,
assignment to Judge Cecchi is appropriate under Civil Local Rule 40.1 (c).
Dated: April 6, 2012
By: s/Jeremy Klausner
Agostino & Associates, P.C.
The Bank House
· 14 Washington Place
Hackensack, N J 07 601
Telephone: (201) 488-5400
Facsimile: (201) 488-5855
Leo P. Cunningham*
Michael H. Rubin*
Anthony J W eibell *
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
*Admitted in California, Pro Hac Vice
Admission in this Court to be Sought
Attorneys for Defendant
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?