`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE GOOGLE DIGITAL
`ADVERTISING ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 20-cv-03556-BLF
`
`Case No. 20-cv-08984-BLF
`
`Case No. 20-cv-09092-BLF
`
`Case No. 20-cv-09321-BLF
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00022-BLF
`
`SWEEPSTAKES TODAY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00748-BLF
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00810-BLF
`
`ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`GENIUS MEDIA GROUP, INC., et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALPHABET INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`STERLING INTERNATIONAL
`CONSULTING GROUP,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-04130-BLF Document 23 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK J. ASTARITA,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`JLASALLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`MIKULA WEB SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`On March 2, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause why the following publisher
`
`plaintiff cases should not be consolidated:
`
`• Sweepstakes Today, LLC v. Google, LLC, et al., 20-cv-08984
`
`• Genius Media Group, Inc., et al., v. Google, LLC, et al., 20-cv-09092
`
`• Sterling International Consulting Group v. Google LLC, 20-cv-09321
`
`• Astarita v. Google LLC, et al., 21-cv-00022
`
`• JLaSalle Enterprises LLC v. Google LLC, 21-cv-00748
`
`• Mikula Web Solutions, Inc. v. Google LLC, 21-cv-00810
`
`ECF 110. The parties jointly filed a non-opposition to consolidation on March 10, 2021. ECF 113.
`
`“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . .
`
`consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this
`
`rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-04130-BLF Document 23 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). “In determining whether or not to
`
`consolidate cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential
`
`for delay, confusion and prejudice.” Bodri v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 WL 1718217, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Apr. 28, 2016) (quoting Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2010)).
`
`In light of the parties’ consensus and the common questions of law and fact in the relevant
`
`cases, the Court CONSOLIDATES the publisher cases for all purposes, including trial and
`
`dispositive motions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
`
`(1) The Clerk of Court shall administratively consolidate Case Nos. 20-cv-08984, 20-cv-
`
`09092, 20-cv-09321, 21-cv-00022, 21-cv-00748, and 21-cv-00810.
`
`(2) The master docket and master file for the consolidated actions shall be Case No. 20-cv-
`
`08984 and the consolidated action shall bear the caption In re Google Digital Publisher
`
`Antitrust Litigation. The remaining cases shall be administratively closed.
`
`(3) All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents shall, when filed and docketed in
`
`the master file, be deemed filed and docketed in each individual case to the extent
`
`applicable.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 10, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`