Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04928/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04928-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATROYA SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOUBLETREE MANAGEMENT LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ANDRE MCMAHON and LATROYA

SIMPSON,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT LLC,

Defendant /

No. C 12-04928 JSW

No. C 12-05169 JSW

ORDER (1) REGARDING

HEARING DATES AND (2)

REQUIRING FURTHER

SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF

THE MOTIONS TO TRANSFER

Motions to transfer and motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the class

allegations are currently pending in both of the above captioned matters. When the action

against Embassy Suites Management LLC (“Embassy Suites”) was related to the action against

DoubleTree Management and DoubleTree DTWC LLC (collectively, “DoubleTree”), parties

were instructed that any dates for noticed motions had been vacated and must be re-noticed

before the newly assigned judge by the moving party. Despite this clear instruction, Embassy

Suites has not yet re-noticed the motion to transfer or the motion to dismiss or, in the 

Case 3:12-cv-04928-JSW Document 40 Filed 01/02/13 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

2

alternative, to strike. Nevertheless, the Court HEREBY SETS these motions to be heard on

March 22, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. The Court CONTINUES the motion to transfer and the motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike filed by DoubleTree to be heard on the same day, March

22, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

In their motions to transfer, DoubleTree and Embassy Suites show that they are both

owned by Hilton Worldwide, Inc., the same defendant in Young v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., et

al., Case No. CV12-1788, in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. In Young, the plaintiff alleged he called the Hilton Reservations Worldwide, LLC

doing business as Hilton Reservations and Customer Care (“Hilton Reservations”) to ask about

hotel rates and/or to make hotel reservations at the Hampton Inn. He further alleged that the

defendant hotel recorded, monitored, or eavesdropped on their calls without obtaining their

consent, in violation of a California penal provision. Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases

assert the same allegations against DoubleTree and Embassy Suites.

In support of their motions to transfer, DoubleTree and Embassy Suites argue, but fail to

submit any supporting evidence, that Hilton Worldwide, Inc. operates the reservation call

centers that service calls for hotels in all of its brands, including the Hampton Inn, DoubleTree,

and Embassy Suites. If the same call centers answer the calls for all three hotels, then the Court

finds that the cases would be related and judicial economy would be served by transferring

these matters to the Central District. However, if the calls are answered by different call

centers, and the defendant hotels are merely owned by the same company, then there would not

be sufficient factual overlap to warrant transfer. In the absence of any evidence on this point,

the Court cannot make an informed decision. Therefore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS

DoubleTree and Embassy Suites to submit evidence to describe and demonstrate who services

the calls for their reservations. DoubleTree and Embassy Suites shall submit such supplemental 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-04928-JSW Document 40 Filed 01/02/13 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

3

evidence by no later than January 18, 2013. Plaintiffs may respond to this supplemental

evidence by no later than January 28, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-04928-JSW Document 40 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3