Resnick et al v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al

MOTION to Relate Case Pursuant to Civil L. R. 3-12

N.D. Cal.February 4, 2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 799148.3 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASE NO. C 09-0402 SHOULD BE RELATED; CASE NO. C 09-0002 PJH Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064) jsaveri@lchb.com Michele C. Jackson (State Bar No. 090807) mjackson@lchb.com Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260) efastiff@lchb.com Andrew S. Kingsdale (State Bar No. 255669) akingsdale@lchb.com Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff Margarita Lacabe UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ANDREA RESNICK, GARY BUNKER, JOHN HALEY, AMY LATHAM, ERIC ROSLANSKY and KEVIN SIMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALMART.COM USA LLC, WAL- MART STORES, INC., and NETFLIX, INC., Defendants. Case No. C 09-0002 PJH ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASE NO. C 09-0402 JL SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL L. R. 3-12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 799148.3 - 1 - ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASE NO. C 09-0402 SHOULD BE RELATED; CASE NO. C 09-0002 PJH TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Plaintiff Margarita Lacabe submits this administrative motion for the Court to consider whether Lacabe v. Walmart.com USA LLC, et al., Case No. 09-CV-0402, should be related to Resnick v. Walmart.com USA LLC, et al., Case No. 09-CV-0002, and other cases that have previously been related to Resnick. The Lacabe and the Resnick actions allege that the same Defendants violated federal antitrust law by illegally allocating and monopolizing markets for DVD sales and rentals. Plaintiffs in the Lacabe and Resnick actions all raise claims for violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. The other cases that have previously been related to Resnick, according to the Docket in Case No. 09-CV-0002, are: Related Cases Filed 3:09-cv-0096-PJH O’Connor v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/15/2009 3:09-cv-0111-PJH Endzweig v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/20/2009 3:09-cv-0116-PJH Schmitz v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/20/2009 3:09-cv-0138-PJH Lynch et al. v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/20/2009 3:09-cv-0139-PJH Groce et al. v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/20/2009 3:09-cv-0156-PJH Sivek v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/27/2009 3:09-cv-0180-PJH Faris v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/27/2009 3:09-cv-0225-PJH Slobodin v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/29/2009 3:09-cv-0236-PJH Anthony et al. v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 01/27/2009 3:09-cv-0244-PJH Polk-Stamps v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/29/2009 3:09-cv-0274-PJH Sheeler v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0294-PJH Chapman v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/29/2009 3:09-cv-0297-PJH Orozco v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 01/29/2009 3:09-cv-0340-PJH Landels et al. v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0349-PJH Grime v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0361-PJH Meyer v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0368-PJH Randall v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0375-PJH Hirsch v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0377-PJH Miscioscia v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 02/03/2009 3:09-cv-0391-PJH Chatelain v. Netflix, Inc. et al. 02/03/2009 It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or the possibility of conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. Relating the cases will help eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. All cases pending in this District are at a preliminary stage. Assignment to a single judge would not prejudice any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 799148.3 - 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASE NO. C 09-0402 SHOULD BE RELATED; CASE NO. C 09-0002 PJH other parties. Lacabe v. Walmart.com USA LLC, et al. satisfies the criteria of Rule 3-12. Therefore, Plaintiff Margarita Lacabe respectfully requests that Lacabe be related to Resnick and be assigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, the Judge assigned to the low-numbered case pending in this District, Resnick. Dated: February 4, 2009 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP By: ___s/___________________________ Michele C. Jackson Joseph Saveri (State Bar No. 130064) jsaveri@lchb.com Michele C. Jackson (State Bar No. 090807) mjackson@lchb.com Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260) efastiff@lchb.com Andrew S. Kingsdale (State Bar No. 255669) akingsdale@lchb.com Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Tel: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff Margarita Lacabe