Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02088/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02088-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES—No. C-08-02088 RMW

JAS

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 09/29/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Google, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and

Does 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-08-02088 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE

CASES

[Re Docket No. 16]

Defendant Google moves to relate this action with RK West v. Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-

03452 RMW, Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-0388 SI, and Levitte v.

Google, Inc., Case No. C-08-3369 JW. All parties agree that the three cases sought here to be

related are themselves related. Therefore, the only question for the court is whether those cases

relate to the instant one, which bears the lowest docket number.

It appears that, though in all four cases the defendant is Google and the case concerns the

Adwords program, the similarity ends there. RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte all deal

with Google ads posted on "parked domains" and "error pages," whereas this case concerns Google

charging customers for content ads who, during the Adwords bidding process, left the "CPC content

bid" input blank. Furthermore, the proposed class in this case does not appear to overlap with the

Case 5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES—No. C-08-02088 RMW

JAS 2

proposed classes in RK West, Pulaski & Middleman, and Levitte. See Joint Opp'n to Mot. to

Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, 2-3.

This order only determines that Almeida is not related to RK West, Pulaski & Middleman,

and Levitte. It does not determine whether those cases are related to each other. That issue is before

Judge Ware, whose Levitte case has the lowest docket number of the three.

Accordingly, the court denies defendant's motion to relate.

DATED: 09/29/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RELATE CASES—No. C-08-02088 RMW

JAS 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Daralyn J. Durie ddurie@kvn.com

David Jason Silbert djs@kvn.com

Ryan Marshall Kent rkent@kvn.com

Alyse Deborah Bertenthal abertenthal@kvn.com

Leo Patrick Norton lnorton@cooley.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Alfredo Torrijos at@kbklawyers.com

Brian S. Kabateck bsk@kbklawyers.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 09/29/08 JAS

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:08-cv-02088-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/29/08 Page 3 of 3