MOTION to Relate Case filed by James Cottle, Logan Mitchell, Frederick Schoeneman. (Coll,… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 42)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 42 · 2020-07-08 · Docket on CourtListener

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 
 
 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056 
 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER   
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED  
 
QUADRA & COLL, LLP 
James A. Quadra (SBN 131084) 
jquadra@quadracoll.com 
Rebecca Coll (SBN 184468) 
rcoll@quadracoll.com 
649 Mission Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Tel:  (415) 426-3502 
Fax: (415) 625-9936 
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 
Linda P. Nussbaum (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com 
Bart D. Cohen (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) 
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com 
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor 
New York, NY 10036 
Tel: (917) 438-9102 
Fax: (212) 753-0396 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rachel Curtis, Alexa Grossman, Mallory Grossman, Steven Hannigan, 
Alexis Mullen, Jordan Sacks, and Nicholas Yeomelakis and the Proposed Class 
 
[Additional counsel on signature page] 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
JAMES COTTLE AND FREDERICK  
SCHOENEMAN, on behalf of 
themselves and all others similarly 
situated, 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
v. 
 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
Case No. 4:20-CV-03056 
 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO  
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES  
SHOULD BE RELATED  
 
CLASS ACTION 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 42     Filed 07/08/20     Page 1 of 4

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 
 
 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056 
 
- 1 - 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER   
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED  
 
Plaintiffs Rachel Curtis, Alexa Grossman, Mallory Grossman, Steven Hannigan, Alexis 
Mullen, Jordan Sacks, and Nicholas Yeomelakis (the “Curtis Plaintiffs”) hereby move to relate 
Curtis v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-04344-DMR, to the above-captioned action, and in support 
thereof state as follows:  
I. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) provides that “[w]henever 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 Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that “[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.” 
II. 
ARGUMENT 
The Curtis Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 29, 2020. Like the complaint in this 
case, the Curtis Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendant Plaid Inc. (“Plaid”) violated state and 
federal  privacy statutes by deceiving customers into disclosing passwords that gave Plaid access 
to their sensitive financial and transactional  information. Plaintiffs in both cases allege claims 
including invasion of privacy, and violations of 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.), as well as other claims. See Decl. of Bart D. 
Cohen, Exs. A–B  (complaints). 
Plaintiffs in both cases allege similar facts regarding Plaid’s misconduct, which will be the 
overwhelming focus of discovery and other proceedings in both cases. In particular, plaintiffs in 
both cases allege that Plaid, which embeds its software in several popular financial technology 
application, uses that software to induce consumers to disclose their bank login credentials by 
creating the appearance that they are communicating directly with, and only with, their own 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 42     Filed 07/08/20     Page 2 of 4

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 
 
 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056 
 
- 2 - 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER   
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED  
 
banks. In light of the substantial overlap in the 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 assure 
the most “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of both actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.     
 
Dated:  July 8, 2020 
 
QUADRA & COLL, LLP 
 
By:           /s/ Rebecca Coll      
 
   
      Rebecca Coll 
 
James A. Quadra (SBN 131084) 
jquadra@quadracoll.com 
Rebecca Coll (SBN 184468) 
rcoll@quadracoll.com 
649 Mission Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Tel:  (415) 426-3502 
Fax: (415) 625-9936 
 
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 
Linda P. Nussbaum (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com 
Bart D. Cohen (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) 
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com 
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor 
New York, NY 10036 
Tel: (917) 438-9102 
Fax: (212) 753-0396 
 
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 
Michael E. Criden (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) 
mcriden@cridenlove.com 
Lindsey Grossman (Pro Hac Vice to be Filed) 
lgrossman@cridenlove.com 
7301 SW 57th Court, Ste 515 
South Miami FL 33143 
Tel: (305) 357-9000 
Fax: (305) 357-9050 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rachel Curtis, Alexa 
Grossman, Mallory Grossman, Steven Hannigan, 
Alexis Mullen, Jordan Sacks, and Nicholas 
Yeomelakis and the Proposed Class  
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 42     Filed 07/08/20     Page 3 of 4

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 
 
 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056 
 
- 3 - 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER   
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED  
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on July 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Administrative 
Motion To Consider Whether 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/ Rebecca Coll       
 
   
    Rebecca Coll 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 42     Filed 07/08/20     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.42.0.pdf

Size

222,131 bytes

SHA-256

576ee251f38ae81ae290271ee8f2ec53d019f8a243291b8baee53fd615379c81

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.42.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)