ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed by Logan Mitchell.… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 37)

Summary

An Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Document 37, filed 06/26/20 by Plaintiff Logan Mitchell in James Cottle and Frederick Schoeneman v. Plaid Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-3056, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The motion asks the court to relate Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-4230, to the lower-numbered Cottle action under Civil L.R. 3-12 and 7-11. It states that the Cottle complaint was filed on May 4, 2020 and the Mitchell action on June 25, 2020, and that both allege Plaid Inc. violated state and federal privacy statutes, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701). The four-page filing is signed /s/ Aaron M. Sheanin of Robins Kaplan LLP and dated June 26, 2020.

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

Full text

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
MOUNTAIN VIEW 
 
 
Administrative Motion to Consider  
Whether Cases Should Be Related 
 
4:20-cv-3056 
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 
Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805) 
Aaron M. Sheanin (SBN 214472) 
mram@robinskaplan.com 
asheanin@robinskaplan.com 
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100 
Mountain View, CA 94040 
Telephone: (650) 784-4040 
 
Kellie Lerner (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
Hollis Salzman (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
William Reiss (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
David Rochelson (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
klerner@robinskaplan.com 
hsalzman@robinskaplan.com  
wreiss@robinskaplan.com 
drochelson@robinskaplan.com 
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 
New York, NY 10022 
Telephone: (212) 980-7400 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Logan Mitchell and the 
Proposed Classes 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
JAMES COTTLE and FREDERICK 
SCHOENEMAN on behalf of themselves and 
all others similarly situated, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
Defendant. 
Case No. 4:20-cv-3056 
Case No. 3:20-cv-4230 
 
CLASS ACTION 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 
SHOULD BE RELATED 
 
[N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12, 7-11] 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 37   Filed 06/26/20   Page 1 of 4

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
MOUNTAIN VIEW 
 
 
Administrative Motion to Consider  
Whether Cases Should Be Related 
 
4:20-cv-3056 
 
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 
Plaintiff Logan Mitchell moves to relate Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-4230, to Cottle 
v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-3056. 
I. 
LEGAL STANDARD FOR RELATING CASES 
“Whenever a party knows or learns that an action, filed in or removed to this district is (or 
the party believes that the action may be) related to an action which is or was pending in this District 
as defined in Civil L.R. 3-12(a), the party must promptly file in the lowest-numbered case an 
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7- 
11.” Civil L.R. 3-12(b). 
Under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), “[a]n action is related to another when: (1) The actions 
concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that 
there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the 
cases are conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a). 
II. 
THE NEWLY FILED ACTIONS SHOULD BE RELATED 
Plaintiff Logan Mitchell respectfully submits that Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-4230, 
should be related to Cottle v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-3056. The complaint in Cottle v. Plaid Inc., 
No. 4:20-cv-3056, was filed on May 4, 2020, and Plaintiff filed her action on June 25, 2020.  
Both actions allege that the same Defendant, Plaid Inc. violated various state and federal 
privacy statutes by deceiving customers into handing over sensitive financial and transactional 
information. As can be readily seen by comparing the Complaints in these actions, they involve 
substantially the same subject matter and parties. See Decl. of Aaron M. Sheanin, Exs. A–B 
(Complaints filed in the Northern District). Both Complaints allege that Defendant Plaid Inc. 
violated, inter alia, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the Stored 
Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701), the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal Bus. & Prof. 
Code § 17200 et seq.), the California Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 (Cal Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948.2 
et seq.), California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal Pen. Code § 502 et seq.), 
California Civ. Code § 1709, and Article I of the California Constitution, and bring certain 
additional common law claims. And both cases allege similar facts and details about how Defendant 
violated these laws. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 37   Filed 06/26/20   Page 2 of 4

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
MOUNTAIN VIEW 
 
 
Administrative Motion to Consider  
Whether Cases Should Be Related 
 
No. 43:20-cv-3056 
2 
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 
Accordingly, these cases call for determination of multiple questions of fact and law that 
are the same or substantially similar, including whether Defendant Plaid Inc. violated state and 
federal privacy laws and the amount of damages owed to the proposed classes. Given the substantial 
overlap in the parties, relevant transactions and events, and questions of fact and law in these 
actions, relating them will avoid waste of the Court’s resources and prevent inconsistent results. It 
will also assist in the most just and efficient resolution of these actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.  
III. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Logan Mitchell respectfully requests that the Court 
order that Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-4230, be related to the lower-numbered case, Cottle 
v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-3056. 
 
 
DATED:  June 26, 2020 
 
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
By:  /s/Aaron M. Sheanin________________ 
 
Aaron M. Sheanin (SBN 214472) 
Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805) 
asheanin@robinskaplan.com 
mram@robinskaplan.com 
2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100 
Mountain View, CA  94040 
Telephone: (650) 784 4040 
 
Kellie Lerner (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
Hollis Salzman (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
William Reiss (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
David Rochelson (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
klerner@robinskaplan.com 
hsalzman@robinskaplan.com 
wreiss@robinskaplan.com 
drochelson@robinskaplan.com 
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 
New York, NY 10022 
Telephone: (212) 980-7400 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Logan Mitchell 
and the Proposed Classes 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 37   Filed 06/26/20   Page 3 of 4

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
MOUNTAIN VIEW 
 
 
Administrative Motion to Consider  
Whether Cases Should Be Related 
 
4:20-cv-3056 
 
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 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on June 26, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document entitled 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETEHR CASES SHOULD BE 
RELATED with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Northern District of 
California using the CM/ECF system and served a copy of same upon all counsel of record via the 
Court’s electronic filing system. 
 
 
/s/ Aaron M. Sheanin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 37   Filed 06/26/20   Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.37.0.pdf

Size

78,223 bytes

SHA-256

7822a5e956f22305ca2e5697374d1ab18304345cb2d92f89003c4483d7782cfe

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.37.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com