1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER (AMENDED) RELATING CASES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER (AMENDED) RELATING 

CASES

Re: Dkt. Nos 49, 50, 51

On February 16, 2017, plaintiff in the case of Bornstein et al v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 

17-CV-234-LHK (“the Bornstein Action”), filed in the instant case, FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case 

No. 17-CV-00220-LHK (“the FTC Action”), an administrative motion to relate cases. ECF No. 

49. On February 17, 2017, plaintiffs in the case of Tada et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-

CV-00762-HRL (“the Tada Action”), filed in the FTC Action an administrative motion to relate 

cases. ECF No. 50. On February 23, 2017, plaintiffs in the Bornstein Action filed in the FTC 

Action an additional administrative motion to relate cases. ECF No. 51 (collectively, the 

“Motions to Consolidate”)

To date, the Court has related the following cases to the FTC Action: (1) the Bornstein

Action; (2) Stromberg et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-304-LHK; (3) McMahon v. 

Case 5:17-cv-00622-LHK Document 10 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER (AMENDED) RELATING CASES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-304-LHK; (4) Boardsports School, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 

Case No. 17-CV-398-LHK; (5) Benad et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-CV-440; (6) Key v. 

Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-442; (7) Ewald et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-565; 

(8) Esteban v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-622; (9) Davis et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 

17-CV-604 (collectively, “the Related Actions”). 

The instant Motions to Consolidate seek to consolidate the following actions to the Related 

Actions: (1) Housenick et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-CV-675; (2) Ervin v. Qualcomm, 

Inc., Case No. 17-CV-713; (3) Carney v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-743; (4) Tada et al. v. 

Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-762; (5) Kiefer et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-785. 

The Court finds that these actions “concern substantially the same parties, property, 

transaction or event” and it is “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 FTC Action is the first-filed case and thus has the lowest case number. Under Civil 

L.R. 3-12(f)(3), “[i]f any Judge decides that any of the cases are related, . . . the Clerk shall 

reassign all higher-numbered cases to that Judge.” Accordingly, the Clerk shall relate the laterfiled cases, Housenick et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-CV-675; Ervin v. Qualcomm, Inc., 

Case No. 17-CV-713; Carney v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-743; Tada et al. v. Qualcomm, 

Inc., Case No. 17-CV-762; and Kiefer et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-785; to the first 

filed case, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00622-LHK Document 10 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2