Court filing

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 42 MOTION to Relate Case ) filed byPlaid Inc.. (Dettmer, Ethan)… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 43)

Summary

Defendant Plaid Inc.'s Response in Support of Curtis Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, dated July 8, 2020, in James Cottle, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. It states that on July 8, 2020 the Curtis Plaintiffs filed the Administrative Motion, arguing that this case is related to Curtis v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-04344-DMR. Plaid Inc. states that it supports the motion because both actions concern substantially the same alleged parties, property, transaction or event, and that relating the actions will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results. It is signed /s/ Ethan Dettmer.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed	2020-05-04

Cite this document

“OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 42 MOTION to Relate Case ) filed byPlaid Inc.. (Dettmer, Ethan)… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 43).” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed 2020-05-04. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-plaid-privacy-cand-359040/2020-05-04-gov-uscourts-cand-359040-43-0-doc-43/, SHA-256 2cb15170dfa4cceec031cca50c6bcae1852677d8226c074305d372326caab60b.

Full text

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
 
 
 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF CURTIS PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 
TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP  
ETHAN D. DETTMER, SBN 196046  
edettmer@gibsondunn.com 
ABIGAIL A. BARRERA, SBN 301746 
abarrera@gibsondunn.com 
ASHLEY J. HODGE, SBN 287653 
ahodge@gibsondunn.com 
ANTHONY D. BEDEL, SBN 324065 
tbedel@gibsondunn.com 
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Telephone: 415.393.8200 
Facsimile: 415.393.8306 
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 
ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL (pro hac vice) 
asouthwell@gibsondunn.com 
200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor 
New York, NY 10166 
Telephone: 212.351.4000 
Facsimile: 212.351.4035 
Attorneys for Defendant PLAID INC. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
JAMES COTTLE, et al., 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
PLAID INC., 
Defendant. 
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN 
SUPPORT OF CURTIS PLAINTIFFS’ 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD 
BE RELATED 
Hon. Donna M. Ryu 
 
 
 
Action Filed: 
May 4, 2020 
Trial Date: 
None Set 
 
 
 
 

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
 
 
1 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF CURTIS PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 
TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Rachel Curtis, Alexa Grossman, Mallory Grossman, Steven 
Hannigan, Alexis Mullen, Jordan Sacks, and Nicholas Yeomelakis (the “Curtis Plaintiffs”) filed an 
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, arguing that the above-
captioned case is related to Curtis v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-04344-DMR (N.D. Cal.).  See Dkt. No. 
42.  
Plaid Inc. supports the Curtis Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion because both actions “concern 
substantially the same [alleged] parties, property, transaction or event.”  Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1), (2).  
The actions involve the same defendant, Plaid Inc., and the same plaintiffs since the putative 
nationwide class is identical.  Moreover, the two actions involve similar legal theories, and the Curtis 
action includes a subset of the causes of action alleged in Cottle.  Further, both complaints allege 
similar facts relating to Plaid’s supposed violations of federal privacy laws.    
Thus, given the similarity of the alleged parties, underlying factual allegations, and legal 
theories, relating these two actions will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results.  Indeed, 
relation would mitigate the “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense” that Plaid Inc. 
would be required to expend in the event it had to litigate these matters separately.  Civ. L.R. 3-
12(a)(2). 
 
Dated: July 8, 2020 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 
By: /s/ Ethan Dettmer 
 
Ethan D. Dettmer (SBN 196046) 
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 
Telephone: 415.393.8200 
Fax: 415.393.8306 
 
 
Attorneys for Defendant Plaid Inc.

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.43.0.pdf
Size: 148,786 bytes
SHA-256: 2cb15170dfa4cceec031cca50c6bcae1852677d8226c074305d372326caab60b
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.43.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com