Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP
`TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)
`THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952)
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: 619/338-1100
`619/338-1101 (fax)
`tblood@bholaw.com
`toreardon@bholaw.com
`
`THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
`ANDREW J. BROWN (160562)
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: 619/501-6550
`andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`District Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose
`Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen
`Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose
`
`Complaint Filed:
`Trial Date:
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`June 12, 2020
`Not Set
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Plaintiffs John Coffee, Mei-Ling Montanez
`
`and S.M., a minor by Mei-Ling Montanez, S.M.’s parent and guardian, hereby oppose Defendant
`
`Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to consolidate the instant “loot box” case with the following
`
`factually distinct “casino” cases:
`
`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.
`
`5:21-cv-01589-NC
`
`Lords v. Google LLC, et al.
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a), relation is only appropriate if “(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.” At least as to Coffee, which is the “loot box” case, none of these
`
`factors are met. Plaintiffs in Coffee take no position on whether any of the above-listed “casino”
`
`cases should be related to each other.
`
`The iconic song from the children’s show “Sesame Street” applies. As the song goes, “One
`
`of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.” Here, in addition to
`
`meeting none of Local Rule 3-12(a)’s requirements, Coffee has nothing in common with the other
`
`cases. The crux of Coffee concerns Google’s partnership with videogame developers to market and
`
`sell loot boxes to minors and others within certain videogames. See ECF No. 59, ¶¶ 1-10. None of
`
`the other cases involve loot boxes. And to the Coffee Plaintiffs’ knowledge, loot boxes are not found
`
`in any of the “social casino” games that are the subject of the other cases. Notably, Google itself
`
`does not claim there is a single game in any of the other cases that is also the subject of the instant
`
`case.
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Further, these cases only involve a single overlapping party – Google. All the other parties
`
`are different. Even the members of the proposed classes are different, at least as to Coffee.
`
`Similarly, there is no “property, transaction, or event” in common between Coffee and the
`
`casino cases – and Google fails to identify any. Instead, Google asserts it intends to raise a legal
`
`issue – immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230, et seq. – in each case. But that is a legal issue, not a party,
`
`property, transaction, or event. The fact that it will seek to apply a legal rule to a variety of cases
`
`does not make those cases related. In fact, one other court has already decided that very same legal
`
`issue in a much more factually similar loot box case that is not related. See Taylor, et al. v. Apple
`
`Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03906 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2021); ECF Nos. 15 and 16. Similarly, Google’s
`
`10
`
`assertion that there is overlap of a dispositive issue regarding each Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment
`
`11
`
`claim is specious – it did not even make this argument in its Motion to Dismiss Coffee. See ECF No.
`
`12
`
`17 at pp. 22-24.
`
`13
`
`Google’s fixation on its payment system does not help it. As even Google admits, all money
`
`14
`
`received from app game players must go through the Google Play system. Under Google’s analysis,
`
`15
`
`that would mean every lawsuit concerning apps in its Google Play Store should be deemed related,
`
`
`
`16
`
`regardless of the parties or subject matter.
`
`17
`
`Nor are there any notable economies to be gained in discovery if the cases are related and
`
`18
`
`litigated before the same judge. While there may be one or two similar legal issues to resolve in a
`
`19
`
`motion to dismiss, there is not a sufficient factual similarity to justify relating the cases. Contrary to
`
`20
`
`Google’s claim, any “burden” caused by potentially “duplicative” discovery (which Google does
`
`21
`
`not identify) is not “unduly” so, and in any event, is easily remedied by counsels’ good faith
`
`22
`
`obligation to work with each other throughout the litigation – present in every case.
`
`23
`
`Finally, although there are several loot box cases filed in this District that assert generally
`
`24
`
`similar theories as asserted in Coffee, on October 13, 2020, this Court rejected an attempt by a game
`
`25
`
`developer that includes loot boxes in its games to relate the actions against Google and Apple for
`
`26
`
`their roles in facilitating and selling loot boxes. See ECF No. 46. If relation was not appropriate
`
`27
`
`there, it certainly is not appropriate here, where the actions are factually distinct, involve different
`
`28
`
`parties, and do not involve the same property, transaction, or event.
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs Coffee and Montanez respectfully request that the cases be deemed
`
`not related to the instant action.
`
`Dated: April 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP
`TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)
`THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952)
`
`
`By:
`
` s/ Timothy G. Blood
`TIMOTHY G. BLOOD
`
`
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: 619/338-1100
`619/338-1101 (fax)
`tblood@bholaw.com
`toreardon@bholaw.com
`
`THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
`ANDREW J. BROWN (160562)
`501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: 619/501-6550
`andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify:
`
`1.
`
`That on April 1, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted
`
`5
`
`on the Electronic Mail Notice List as follows:
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`Bradford K. Newman (178902)
`Alexander G. Davis (287840)
`Anne Kelts Assayag (298710)
`bradford.newman@bakermckenzie.com
`alexander.davis@bakermckenzie.com
`anne.assayag@bakermckenzie.com
`
`BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
`Teresa H. Michaud (296329)
`Kirby Hsu (312535)
`teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com
`kirby.hsu@bakermckenzie.com
`
`
`2.
`
`That on April 1, 2021, I caused the foregoing to be served on the non-CM/ECF
`
`participants by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at San Diego, California in
`
`a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed on the
`
`attached Service List.
`
`3.
`
`That there is regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the
`
`places so addressed
`
`I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 1, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Timothy G. Blood
`TIMOTHY G. BLOOD
`
`
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`Sparks v. Google, LLC et al. Case
`No. 5:21-cv-01516-NC
`
`Long v. Google, LLC et al. Case
`No. 5:21-cv- 01589-NC
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`
`
`Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
`Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
`One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Tel: 954-525-4100
`Fax: 954-525-4300
`Email: alperstein@kolawyers.com
`
`Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
`Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
`Tycko & Zavareei LLP
`1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 973-0900
`Fax: (202) 973-0950
`Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`Email: agold@tzlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`John Sparks
`individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
`Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Tel: (818) 788-8300
`Fax: (818) 788-8104
`Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
`
`Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
`Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
` Weiselberg Gilbert
`One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Tel: 954-525-4100
`Fax: 954-525-4300
`Email: alperstein@kolawyers.com
`
`Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
`Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
`Tycko & Zavareei LLP
`1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 973-0900
`Fax: (202) 973-0950
`
`Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`Email: agold@tzlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Frances Long
`on behalf of herself and
`all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`5
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Lords v. Google, LLC et al. Case
`No. 5:21-cv-01725-NC
`
`Bruschi v. Google, LLC et al.
`5:21-cv-01992-SVK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
`Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Tel: (818) 788-8300
`Fax: (818) 788-8104
`Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
`
`Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
`Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
`Tycko & Zavareei LLP
`1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 973-0900
`Fax: (202) 973-0950
`
`Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`Email: agold@tzlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Terri Bruschi
`individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kristen Cardoso, Esq.
`Kopelowitz Ostrow PA
`One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Tel: 954-525-4100
`Fax: 954-525-4300
`Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
`
`Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
`Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Tel: (818) 788-8300
`Fax: (818) 788-8104
`Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
`
`Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
`Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
`Tycko & Zavareei LLP
`1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 973-0900
`Fax: (202) 973-0950
`
`Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
`Email: agold@tzlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Shellie Lords
`individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`6
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03901-BLF Document 61 Filed 04/01/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`Andrews et al. v. Google LLC -
`Case No. 3:21-cv-02100-WHO
`
`Todd M. Logan, Esq.
`Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
`Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
`Edelson PC
`123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
`San Francisco, CA 94107
`Tel: (415) 212-9300
`Fax: (415) 373-9435
`
`Email: tlogan@edelson.com
`Email: bsilverkorn@edelson.com
`Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Jennifer Andrews and John Sarley,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`00176427
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03901-BLF
`7
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`