Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed by Carrie Anderson — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 52)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 52 · 2020-07-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED 
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
 
Jon A. Tostrud (CA Bar No. 199502) 
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (310) 278-2600 
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com 
 
Paul C. Whalen (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 
768 Plandome Road 
Manhasset, NY 11030 
Telephone: (516) 426-6870 
Email: paul@paulwhalen.com  
 
Brian P. Murray (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
Lee Albert (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 
New York, NY 10169 
Telephone: (212) 682-5340 
Fax: (212) 884-0988 
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com  
Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com  
 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs David Evans, Patrick Lenahen, Adam Smotkin, Oswaldo Herrera and the 
Proposed Classes 
 
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, 
 
Defendants. 
 
Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 
SHOULD BE RELATED 
 
CLASS ACTION 
  
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 52     Filed 07/22/20     Page 1 of 4

 
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
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11, Plaintiffs David Evans, Patrick Lenahen, Adam Smotkin, and 
Oswaldo Herrera (the “Evans Plaintiffs”), hereby move to relate Evans, et al. v. Plaid, Inc., No. 
3:20-cv-04804-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 Evans Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 17, 2020. Like the complaint in this 
case, the Evans Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendant Plaid, Inc. (“Plaid”) violated state 
and federal laws 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 Jon A. Tostrud, 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 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 52     Filed 07/22/20     Page 2 of 4

 
3 
 
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
with, their own 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 22, 2020 
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 
 
 
By: /s/ Jon A. Tostrud  
 
 
      Jon A. Tostrud (CA Bar No. 199502) 
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (310) 278-2600 
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com  
 
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 
Brian P. Murray (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
Lee Albert (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 
New York, NY 10169 
Telephone: (212) 682-5340 
Fax: (212) 884-0988 
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com  
Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com  
 
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 
Paul C. Whalen (Pro Hac Vice to be filed) 
768 Plandome Road 
Manhasset, NY 11030 
Telephone: (516) 426-6870 
Email: paul@paulwhalen.com  
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs David Evans, Patrick 
Lenahen, Adam Smotkin, and Oswaldo Herrera, 
and the Proposed Classes 
  
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 52     Filed 07/22/20     Page 3 of 4

 
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on July 22, 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/  Jon A. Tostrud 
 
 
 Jon A. Tostrud 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 52     Filed 07/22/20     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.52.0.pdf

Size

156,590 bytes

SHA-256

e29d89720aa3f41c4a6b40c1239620d1b19fa7813040e0862a905a526c869ef0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)