Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00573/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00573-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 (See Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, hereafter,

“Motion to Relate,” Docket Item No. 64 in Case No. 09-02889 JW.)

2

 (See Declaration of Eric H. Gibbs in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to

Consider Whether Cases Should be Related ¶ 4, Docket Item No. 65 in Case No. 09-02889 JW.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re Intel Laptop Battery Litigation,

 /

Vicky Baker and Mike’s Inc., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Acer America Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 09-02889 JW

NO. C 10-00573 SC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

RELATE CASES

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be

Related.1

 Plaintiffs seek the Court’s determination as to whether In Re Intel Laptop Battery

Litigation, Case No. C 09-02889 JW (“First Action”), should be related to Vicky Baker and Mike’s

Inc. v. Acer America Corp., et al., Case No. C 10-00573 SC (“Second Action”). Plaintiffs represent

that counsel for Plaintiffs in the Second Action as well as Defendants consent to having these

Actions related.2

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides:

An 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.

Case 5:10-cv-00573-JW Document 44 Filed 03/11/10 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

Here, the Court finds that the Actions involve substantially the same parties and events. The

allegations are directed primarily against Defendant Intel Corp. (“Intel”) in both actions (indeed,

Intel is the only Defendant in the Second Action). The gravamen of both actions is that Defendant

Intel engaged in unfair business practices by using another company as a front to “independently”

test Intel’s products with favorable results for Intel. In light of the substantial similarity of parties

and events underlying the claims, the Court finds that there is a risk of “an unduly burdensome

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different

Judges.” Thus, the Court finds that the cases are related within the meaning of Rule 3-12(a).

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall immediately relate In Re Intel Laptop Battery

Litigation, Case No. C 09-02889 JW, and Vicky Baker and Mike’s Inc. v. Acer America Corp., et

al., Case No. C 10-00573 SC.

Dated: March 11, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00573-JW Document 44 Filed 03/11/10 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Andrew S. Friedman afriedman@bffb.com

Austin P. Tighe austin@feazell-tighe.com

Dylan Hughes dsh@girardgibbs.com

Elaine A. Ryan eryan@bffb.com

Eric H. Gibbs ehg@girardgibbs.com

Geoffrey Alan Munroe gam@girardgibbs.com

Laurence D. King lking@kaplanfox.com

Manfred Patrick Muecke mmuecke@bffb.com

Mario Man-Lung Choi mchoi@kaplanfox.com

Mark S. Reich mreich@csgrr.com

Patricia Nicole Syverson psyverson@bffb.com

Perry J. Narancic pnarancic@nk-pc.com

Philip A. Leider pleider@perkinscoie.com

Raoul Dion Kennedy rkennedy@skadden.com

Richard John Zuromski Richard.Zuromski@skadden.com

Robert M. Rothman rrothman@lerachlaw.com

Shawn A. Williams shawnw@csgrr.com

Timothy J. Franks tfranks@perkinscoie.com

Todd David Carpenter tcarpenter@bffb.com

Andrew J. Cross across@careydanis.com

Anthony L Marks amarks@perkinscoie.com

Charles A. Newman cnewman@sonnenschein.com

Dan Levi Bagatell dbagatell@perkinscoie.com

Hannah Preston hpreston@sonnenschein.com

James Patrick Schaefer jschaefer@skadden.com

Jason E. Maschmann jmaschmann@sonnenschein.com

Joan Elizabeth Shreffler jshreffler@skadden.com

Joseph Eugene Mais jmais@perkinscoie.com

Kimball R. Anderson kanderson@winston.com

Raoul Dion Kennedy rkennedy@skadden.com

Robert H. Shultz rshultz@hrva.com

Roger K. Heidenreich rheidenreic@sonnenschein.com

Dated: March 11, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:10-cv-00573-JW Document 44 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3