Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 60 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bradford K. Newman (State Bar No. 178902)
` bradford.newman@bakermckenzie.com
`Alexander G. Davis (State Bar No. 287840)
` alexander.davis@bakermckenzie.com
`Anne Kelts Assayag (State Bar No. 298710)
` anne.assayag@bakermckenzie.com
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`600 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: +1 650 856 2400
`Facsimile: +1 650 856 9299
`
`Teresa H. Michaud (State Bar No. 296329)
` teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: +1 310 201 4728
`Facsimile: +1 310 201 4721
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JOHN COFFEE, MEI-LING MONTANEZ,
`and S.M., a minor by MEI-LING
`MONTANEZ, S.M.’s parent and guardian, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`Date Action Filed: June 12, 2020
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`[LR 3-12(b) & 7-11]]
`
`3 - 5th Floor
`Ctrm.:
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`Robert F. Peckham Federal Building &
`United States Courthouse
`280 South 1st Street
`San Jose, CA 95113
`
`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
`
`Baker & McKenzie LLP
`10250 Constellation Blvd.,
`Suite 1850
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 310.201.4728
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 60 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12(b) and 7-11 of the United States District Court for
`
`the Northern District of California, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) hereby moves the Court to
`
`consider whether the present case, Coffee v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`(filed June 12, 2020) is related to any or all of the following class action cases under the local rules
`
`of this district:
`
`
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Assigned Judge
`
`Filing Date
`
`Sparks v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`5:21-cv-01516-NC
`
`Long v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`Lords v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`5:21-cv-01589-NC
`
`5:21-cv-01725-NC
`
`Bruschi v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`5:21-cv-01992-SVK
`
`Andrews v. Google LLC
`
`3:21-cv-02100-WHO
`
`Judge Nathanael M.
`Cousins
`Judge Nathanael M.
`Cousins
`Judge Nathanael M.
`Cousins
`Judge Susan van
`Keulen
`Judge William H.
`Orrick III
`
`03/03/2021
`
`03/05/2021
`
`03/11/2021
`
`03/22/2021
`
`03/25/2021
`
`These matters are related because (1) they 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. Civil
`
`L.R. 3-12(a).
`
`With regard to the first factor in the related case analysis, each of these cases is substantially
`
`similar to the Coffee action because the gravamen of each lawsuit is that certain video game content
`
`offered on the Google Play Store constitutes illegal gambling under various states’ laws. (See
`
`accompanying Declaration of Teresa H. Michaud In Support of the Administrative Motion
`
`(“Michaud Decl.”), at ¶ 3, Ex. 1 (Amended Complaint in Coffee case, ECF 59 at ¶ 1); Id. at ¶ 4,
`
`Ex. 2 (Complaint in Sparks case, ECF 1 at ¶ 1); Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. 3 (Complaint in Long case, ECF 1 at
`
`¶ 1); Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. 4 (Complaint in Lords case, ECF 1 at ¶ 1); Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. 5 (Complaint in Bruschi
`
`case, ECF 1 at ¶ 1); Id. at ¶ 8, Ex. 6 (Complaint in Andrews case, ECF 1 ¶ 14.) Additional key
`
`similarities are as follows:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 60 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` Each names Google as the primary defendant.1
`
` Each alleges liability in connection with Google’s providing a content-neutral payment
`
`tool allowing players to purchase virtual currency offered by videogame developers.
`
` Each seeks to impose liability on Google as the platform or publisher of allegedly illegal
`
`video game content rather than on the respective developers who actually created such
`
`content.
`
`The Plaintiffs in the Sparks, Long, Lords, and Bruschi cases are each represented by the same
`
`attorneys.
`
`As to the second related case factor, the cases present closely related or identical legal issues
`
`based on essentially the same core set of alleged facts. Therefore, having the cases conducted before
`
`different Judges presents a substantial likelihood of conflicting results on the following matters:
`
` Dispositive issue common to all cases: whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency
`
`Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 et seq., protects Google from state law liability for creating a platform
`
`to download video games and a payment tool to process purchases of virtual currency offered
`
`by third-party developers. This Court has already closely considered and resolved this issue
`
`in connection with Google’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint in the Coffee case, and is
`
`therefore familiar with both the relevant law and key alleged facts.
`
` Dispositive issue common to the Coffee, Sparks, Long, Lords, and Bruschi cases: whether
`
`Google’s processing payments for virtual currency on behalf of developers—in which
`
`consumers receive a set amount of such virtual currency in exchange for a set amount of U.S.
`
`dollars—can give rise to a common law claim for unjust enrichment.
`
`
`
`1 The Sparks, Long, Lords, and Bruschi cases also name Google Payment Corp. as a secondary
`
`defendant, but fail to make any specific allegations of wrongdoing against this entity. They instead
`
`make only collective allegations against both defendants. (See, e.g., Michaud Decl., at ¶ 4, Ex. 2
`
`(Complaint in Sparks case) ECF 1 at p. 2:1-3 (“Plaintiff John Sparks . . . alleges the following
`
`against Defendants Google, LLC (“Google LLC”) and Google Payment Corp. (“GPC”) (together,
`
`‘Google’ or ‘Defendants’) . . . .).)
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 60 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
` Dispositive issue common to Coffee and Andrews: whether plaintiffs can establish standing
`
`under California’s Unfair Competition Law against Google. Counsel for the plaintiff in the
`
`Andrews case has also represented to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that a
`
`lawsuit substantially identical to the Andrews case bears significant factual overlap with a
`
`lawsuit substantially identical to the Coffee case (involving Apple’s App Store rather than
`
`Google’s Play Store). See Interested Party Response, CAN/5:21-cv-00553, In re Apple Inc.
`
`App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation (MDL Docket No. 2985), ECF 3 at 3.
`
`Google also expects that the primary categories of discovery, including Google’s publishing
`
`of the games at issue and its content-neutral payment processing services, will substantially overlap
`
`across all cases, resulting in substantial cost and labor efficiencies if these matters all proceed before
`
`the same Court. This is especially so in the case of any discovery disputes that may arise.
`
`For these reasons, the Court should determine that these actions are related and transfer the
`
`later filed case against Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. to this Court for further proceedings.
`
`A courtesy copy of this motion will be lodged with the assigned Judge in each apparently
`
`related case under Civil L.R. 5-1(e).
`
`
`
`Dated: March 29, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`Teresa H. Michaud
`Bradford K. Newman
`Alexander G. Davis
`Anne K. Assayag
`
`By: /s/ Teresa H. Michaud
`Teresa H. Michaud
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`
`
`