Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00087/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership

Including Pro-ressional Corporations

P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646

BRIAN D. ANDERSON, Cal. Bar No. 221545

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4109

Telephone: 415-434-9100

Facsimile: 415-434-3947

Attorneys for The Gymboree Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER LOPEZ, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

V,

THE GYMBOREE CORPORATION and

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:07-cv-00087-SI

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE

RELATED CASES PURSUANT TO

CIVIL L.R. 3-12, CIVIL L.R. 7-11 AND

FED. R. CIV. P. 42(A)

[Complaint Filed: January 5, 2007]

W02-W GST:5RA 1/40024721 1.2 ADMIN. MOTION TO REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE

-ICase 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 6
 Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 6
5

6

7

8

13

14

15

16

17

18

Defendant The Gymboree Corporation ("Gymboree") submits this

Administrative Motion to Reassign and Consolidate Related Cases pursuant to Civil L.R.

3-12, Civil L.R. 7-11 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).

This case ("Lopez") was filed on January 5, 2007 and served on or about

January 22, 2007. The case Mitchell v. The Gymboree Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:07-

cv-00739-WHA ("Mitchell") was filed on February 5, 2007 and has not been served,

although. Gymboree has received a request for waiver of service. Mitchell is assigned to

the Hon. William H. Alsup in this District. It is related to this case according to the criteria

set forth in Civil L.R. 3-12(a) and, therefore, should be reassigned to this courtroom.'

An action is related to another when: (a) "The actions concern substantially

the same parties, property, transaction or event"; and (b) "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).

The Lopez case and the Mitchell case concern the identical alleged

transactions, events and legal claims. Both cases allege that Gymboree violated the Fait

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

(FACTA) portion of it by printing on sales receipts more than the last five digits of

people's credit card or debit card number and/or the expiration date of people's credit card

or debit card.

While each case, of course, has its own individual purported class

representative (i.e., Ms. Lopez and Ms. Mitchell), the purported class in Lopez is identical

to purported "Class B" in Mitchell and only slightly different from purported "Class A" in

Mitchell :2

As the Lopez case was filed prior to the Mitchell case, it is proper for the Judge in this

case, the earliest-filed case, to hear and decide this motion. Civil L.R. 3.12.

Purported "Class A" in Mitchell is slightly different only because of the way the

effective date of the pertinent statutory provision is written. 15 U.S.C § 168le(g)

became effective (a) "3 years after the date of enactment of this subsection [enacted

Dec. 4, 2003], with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that

electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is in use

w0e-wrST:5BA1\400247211.2 ADMIN. MOTION TO REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE

-2-

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 6
 Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 6
I

2

13

14

e Lopez Case: "All individuals in the United States of America who,

on or after Deceffiber 4, 2006, were provided at the point of a sale or transaction with an

electronically-printed receipt by GYMBOREE on which GYMBOREE printed more than

the last five digits of the person's credit card or debit card number, or on which

GYMBOREE printed the expiration date of the person's credit card or debit card." Lopez

Complaint, p.6.

s Mitchell Case: Class A "All persons in the United States to whom,

on or after January 1, 2005, Defendants provided, through use of a machine that was first

put into use by Defendants on or after January 1, 2005, an electronically printed receipt at

the point of a sale or transaction on which Defendants printed more than the last five digits

of the person's credit card or debit card number and /or printed the expiration date of the

person's credit card or debit card"; and Class B "All persons in the United States to whom,

on or after December 4, 2006, Defendants provided, through use of a machine that.was

being used by Defendants before January 1, 2005, an electronically printed receipt at the

point of a sale or transaction on which Defendants printed more than the last five'digits of

the person's credit card or debit card number and/or printed the expiration date of the

person's credit card or debit card." Mitchell Complaint, p. 4.

Similar to the related case reassignment standard, consolidation is proper and

efficient where purported classes are the same. See Fed R. Civ. P. 42(a) ("when actions

involving common questions of law or fact are pending before the court, it ... may order

all the actions consolidated[.]"). In Siegall v. Tibco Software, Inc., this District granted a

Motion for Consolidation concerning multiple class actions involving "substantially

similar, if not identical, factual and legal claims against the same defendants" and identical

purported classes. See Siegall v. Tibco Software, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26780 *9

before January 1, 2005'; and (b) "1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection

[enacted Dec. 4, 2003], with respect to any cash register or other machine or device that

electronically prints receipts for credit card or debit card transactions that is first put

into use on or after January 1, 2005." 15 U.S.C § 1681c(g). Thus, the slight difference

in purported "Class A" in Mitchell is the result of the plaintiff separating claims based

on machines first used before and after January 1, 2005, per the statute.

W02-W FST:5BA 1!400247211.2 ADMIN. MOTION TO REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE

-3-

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 3 of 6
 Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 6
5

6

7

8

15

16

17

(N.D. Cal. 2006). Similarly, the Lopez case and the Mitchell case involve identical factual

and legal claims against the same defendant, Gymboree, and effectively identical

purported classes. These two cases should be conducted before one judge.

Moreover, conducting the Lopez case and the Mitchell case before different

Judges or separately would certainly result in burdensome duplication of labor and

expense. Siegall v. Tibco, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26780 *5 (citing EEOC v. HBE Corp.,

135 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 1998) ("The purpose of consolidation is to avoid the

unnecessary costs or delays that would ensue from proceeding separately with claims or

issues sharing common aspects of law or fact.") Proceeding separately here would

essentially double Gymboree's labor and expense. For example, discovery and motion

practices would be identical in both cases.

Conducting both cases before different judges or separately could also lead

to conflicting results. For instance, the issue of willfulness is paramount in both cases----

and should be resolved by motion-since a plaintiff must show actual damages (something

not alleged in either case) to recover absent a finding of willfulness. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a).

Different outcomes on the willfulness issue would lead to conflicting results in these two

cases.

For the reasons set forth herein, Mitchell is a related case to this one and

should be reassigned to this courtroom and consolidated with Lopez.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: March 27, 2007

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By /S/ Brian D. Anderson

Brian D- Anderson

Attorneys for Defendant THE GYMBOREE

CORPORATION

W02-WGST:5BAT1400247211.2 ADMIN. MOTION TO REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE

-4-

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 4 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 4 of 6
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I am empToyed in the County of San Francisco, I am over the age of eighteen years

and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is Four Embarcadero

Center, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4106.

On March 27, 2007, I served the following document(s) described as follows:

I . Administrative Motion to Reassign and Consolidate Related Cases

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12, Civil L.R. 7-11 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(A)

on the interested party(ies) in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed

envelopes and/or packages addressed as follows:

Elizabeth A. Acevedo, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq.

Keller Grover LLP Thierman Law Firm

425 Second Street, Suite 500 7287 Lakeside Drive

San Francisco, CA 94107 Reno, NV 89511

eacevedo@kellergrover.com Tel: 775/284-1500

Tel: 415/543-1305

Fax: 4151543-7681

Scott A. Miller, Esq.

Law Offices of Scott A. Miller, A.P.C.

16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200

Encino, CA 91436

millaw@a,sbcglobal.net

Tel: 818/788-8081

Steven L. Miller, Esq.

Steven L. Miller, A Professional Law Corporation

16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200

Encino, CA 91436

stevenmiller@sbeglobal.net

Tel: 818/986-8900

BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and

processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited

with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at

San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on

motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or

postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in

affidavit.

q BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served such envelope or package to be

delivered on the same day to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the

overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package

designated by the overnight service carrier.

q BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the

office of the addressee(s).

q BY FACSIMILE: I served said document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile

pursuant to Rule 2008 of the California Rules of Court. The telephone number of

the sending facsimile machine was 415/434-3947. The name(s) and facsimile

machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set forth in the service list.

The sending facsimile machine (or the machine used to forward the facsimile)

issued a transmission report confirming that the transmission was complete and

2-

woe-wEST:rME\aoo249616,t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case No. C 07 cv 00087-SI

q9

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 5 of 6
 Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 5 of 6
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

without error. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e), a copy of that report is attached to this

declaration..

q STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

California that the foregoing is true and correct.

FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of

this Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of

perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and.

correct.

Executed on March 27, 2007, at San Francisco, California.

qx

W02-W EST:FM L\400249616. t

Case No. C 07 cv 00087-SI

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 8 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 6 of 6
 Case 3:07-cv-00087-SI Document 19 Filed 05/14/07 Page 6 of 6