Court filing
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed by Carrie Anderson — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 49)
Filed July 17, 2020 in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation; one of 174 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-07-17 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 49 · 2020-07-17 · 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 ADMIN. MOT TO RELATE CASES HARTLEY LLP Jason Hartley (Cal. Bar #192514) Jason Lindner (Cal. Bar #211451) 101 W. Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 400-5822 Tel: (619) 400-5832 hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. William G. Caldes Jeffery L. Spector Jeffrey L. Kodroff Diana J. Zinser (Pro Hac Vice Applications forthcoming) 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 BCaldes@srkattorneys.com JSpector@srkattorneys.com JKodroff@srkattorneys.com DZinser@srkattorneys.com REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD Garrett D. Blanchfield Roberta A. Yard (Pro Hac Vice Applications forthcoming) 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 287-2100 Fax: (651) 287-2103 g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Carrie Anderson, Brian McCrudden and Jeffrey Schwedock and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO 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 49 Filed 07/17/20 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 ADMIN. MOT TO RELATE CASES Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11, Plaintiffs Carrie Anderson, Brian McCrudden and Jeffrey Schwedock (the “Anderson Plaintiffs”), hereby move to relate Anderson, et al. v. Plaid, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-4480 JSC, to the above-captioned action. 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 lower-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 Anderson Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 7, 2020. Like the complaint in this case, the Anderson 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 Action (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 Jason S. Hartley, Exs. A and 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 applications, uses that software to induce consumers to disclose their bank login credentials by creating the appearance that they are communications directly with, and only with, their own banks. In light of the substantial overlap in the questions of fact and law in these Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 49 Filed 07/17/20 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 - 2 - ADMIN. MOT TO RELATE CASES 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 17, 2020 HARTLEY LLP By: /s/ Jason Hartley Jason Hartley Jason Lindner 101 W. Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 400-5822 TEL (619) 400-5832 FAX hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. William G. Caldes Jeffery L. Spector Jeffrey L. Kodroff Diana J. Zinser 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 BCaldes@srkattorneys.com JSpector@srkattorneys.com JKodroff@srkattorneys.com DZinser@srkattorneys.com REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD Garrett D. Blanchfield Roberta A. Yard 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 287-2100 Fax: (651) 287-2103 g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com Attorneys for Anderson Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 49 Filed 07/17/20 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 - 3 - ADMIN. MOT TO RELATE CASES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 17, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related with the Clerk of this Court using the CM/ECF system and served a copy of same upon all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system. /s/ Jason S. Hartley Jason S. Hartley Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 49 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.359040.49.0.pdf
- Size
- 32,626 bytes
- SHA-256
- f73816056bbbf15280f41d8457a5d44ba59a7ffcfcb378ef1158eb62ce3726b7
- Original
- PACER (login required)