Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
MOTION by Defendant Google Inc. for leave to file Separate Motion and Supporting Brief to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Unopposed) (Moran, Mariah)
Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VULCAN GOLF, LLC, JOHN B. SANFILIPPO & SONS, INC., BLITZ REALTY GROUP, INC., and VINCENT E. "BO" JACKSON, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., OVERSEE.NET, SEDO LLC, DOTSTER, INC., AKA REVENUEDIRECT.COM, INTERNET REIT, INC. d/b/a/ IREIT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-X, Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. 07 CV 3371 ) ) ) Hon. Blanche M. Manning ) ) ) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Google's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Separate Motion and Supporting Brief to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Defendant Google, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to allow Google, Inc. to file its own motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and to file a supporting memorandum of up to 30 pages. In support of this motion, Google provides as follows: 1. In their First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs make claims against a number of
users of Google services (Oversee.net, Sedo, Dotster, and IREIT) and against Google. The First Amended Complaint is 92 pages long, consists of more than 450 numbered paragraphs, and contains fourteen separate counts. 2. Google has joined in its co-defendants' Joint and Unopposed Motion for Leave to
File Separate Motions and Supporting Briefs to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. However, because the reasons that Google should be permitted to file its own motion to dismiss are somewhat different than the reasons presented in its co-defendants' motion, Google
Page 2 of 3
additionally files this separate motion. 3. The complaint alleges that Google is liable for the alleged wrongful acts of its
users. For this reason, if the other defendants are not liable, Google is not liable. Without some underlying claim against Google's users, there can be no secondary liability for Google. Thus, Google has an interest in the full and fair presentation of the other defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal. 4. Even if the complaint were not dismissed as to the other defendants, Google has
independent arguments that the complaint should be dismissed as to Google. As Google intends to argue in its motion to dismiss, the complaint does not allege acts on the part of Google that would make it secondarily liable for the alleged wrongful acts of its users. In addition, Google intends to argue that special immunities are available to parties who, like Google, republish the work of others and provide content-neutral services to users like the other defendants. 5. Thus, there are grounds for dismissal as to Google independent of the grounds for
dismissal as to the other defendants, and Google should be permitted to file its own motion to dismiss. 6. Google shares the Court's desire for efficiency, and will endeavor to join those
portions of the other defendants' briefs that are applicable to Google, and to coordinate with the other defendants to allow them to join portions of Google's brief. While plaintiffs have stated that they do not oppose a request for separate briefs of up to 35 pages, Google will work to make its brief as concise as possible, and is optimistic that its brief will be substantially shorter than 30 pages. Wherefore, Google requests leave to file its own motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint and to file a supporting memorandum of up to 30 pages.
Page 3 of 3
Dated: September 28, 2007
Respectfully submitted, GOOGLE, INC By: /s/ Mariah E. Moran_________ One of Its Attorneys
Michael H. Page Joseph Gratz Keker & Van Nest, LLP San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 391-5400 Lead Counsel Admitted Pro Hac Vice Joseph J. Duffy Jonathan M. Cyrluk Mariah E. Moran STETLER & DUFFY, LTD. 11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 338-0200
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?