UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION, LOS ANGELES

Transcription

1 Danielle Reyas v. Google, Inc. Doc Avi Melech Kreitenberg, Esq. (SBN 1) akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com KAMBERLAW LLP South Beverly Drive Suite 01 Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: () 00-0 Facsimile: () 00- Counsel for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION, LOS ANGELES DANIELLE REYAS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE, INC. Plaintiff, Defendant. STIPULATION TO TRANSFER VENUE Pursuant to U.S.C., the Parties hereby file this Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, and in support thereof, respectfully show: This class action lawsuit was filed on May,, 1 and involves allegations that Defendant Google, Inc. s Street View program unlawfully intercepted and stored Plaintiff s and members of the class s private information, in violation of Federal and State law. In addition to this lawsuit, nine other lawsuits have been filed in various Federal courts regarding the alleged causes of action 1 See Docket Entry 1. Dockets.Justia.com

2 1 1 1 described in Plaintiff s Original Complaint. Two such cases are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The two Northern District cases have been determined to be related pursuant to the local rules of that court and have each been assigned to the Honorable Judge Ware for consolidated proceedings. In addition, on June,, Plaintiffs in one of the other cases filed a Motion with the Joint Panel on Multi- District Litigation ( JPMDL ) seeking consolidation of each of this and the nine other above-described lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Defendant Google and plaintiffs in some other cases have responded to that motion seeking consolidation in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. By this Stipulation, the Parties agree to the Transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose See Van Valin v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -0 (D. Or.)(Mosman, J.); Berlage v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. - (N.D. Cal.)(Ware, J.); Galaxy Internet Services, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -1 (D. Mass.)(Young, J.); Colman v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -0 (D.D.C.)(Bates, J.); Stokes v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -0 (N.D. Cal.)(Ware, J.); Keyes v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -0 (D.D.C.)(Bates, J.); Redstone v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No (S.D. Ill.)(Gilbert, J.); and Carter v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. - (E.D. Pa.)(Slomsky, J.); Mulholland v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. - (E.D. Pa.)( Slomsky, J.). Berlage v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. - (N.D. Cal.)(Ware, J.) and Stokes v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. -0 (N.D. Cal.)(Ware, J.). See Berlage and Stokes, Supra Note (docket entries and respectively). See Motion of Plaintiffs Patrick Keyes, Deepa Isac, and Edward Fenn to Transfer and Consolidate Related Cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (filed in each of the above-referenced cases listed in footnote (attached hereto for the Court s convenience as Exhibit 1). - -

3 1 1 1 Division. Transfer of this matter is controlled by U.S.C., which provides: For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. In its Memorandum to the JPMDL, Defendant supports transfer of all the lawsuits to the Northern District of California primarily because Defendant s principal place of business and headquarters are located in Mountain View, California, which is in the Northern District of California, and because Google believes that most of the likely witnesses and relevant documents are located in the Northern District of California. Because Defendant s principal place of business is located within the Northern District, this action could have been brought there initially, making transfer to the Northern District appropriate under U.S.C.. Furthermore, based on Defendant s representations regarding the location of relevant witnesses and documents, Plaintiff agrees that the convenience of the parties and witnesses to this action warrants transfer and therefore supports transfer of this action to the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, plaintiffs and Google Inc. agree and hereby stipulate to: Transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division and request that this action be transferred accordingly; All pretrial deadlines shall be stayed pending the JPML s resolution of whether the Google Wi-Fi cases, and all subsequently-filed related actions, should U.S.C.A. (West) (emphasis added). - -

4 1 1 1 be transferred to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; In the event that the JPML denies transfer of the Google Wi-Fi cases, and all subsequently-filed related actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, Google shall have thirty days from the date of the order denying transfer to plead, answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs class action complaint; and In the event that the JPML orders the transfer of the Google Wi-Fi cases, and all subsequently-filed related actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, Google shall plead, answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs class action complaint within thirty days from (a) the date that plaintiffs file a master consolidated complaint in the transferee district or (b) the date that it is resolved by the transferee court and/or counsel for plaintiffs and Google that no master consolidated complaint will be filed. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this th day of July,. - - KAMBERLAW LLP /s/ Avi Melech Kreitenberg Avi Melech Kreitenberg (SBN 1) akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com South Beverly Drive Suite 01 Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: () 00-0 Facsimile: () 00- Ilana Doust (SBN 00) idoust@sbcglobal.net DOUST LAW ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

5 PERKINS COIE LLP /s/ Gigi C. Hoang Gigi C. Hoang, (SBN 1) GHoang@perkinscoie.com Century Park East, Suite 00 Los Angeles, CA 00- Telephone:..00 Facsimile:.. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

6 1 1 1 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER I, Avi Melech Kreitenberg, attest that I obtained the concurrence of Gigi C. Hoang, in filing this document. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this th day of July,, at Los Angeles, California. - - /s/ Avi Melech Kreitenberg Avi Melech Kreitenberg

7 1 1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July,, I electronically filed the above Motion with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or by U. S. mail for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. - - /s/ Avi Melech Kreitenberg