throbber
Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 47 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-08570-LHK
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
`RELATE; CONSOLIDATING CASES;
`SETTING CASE SCHEDULE;
`DENYING STIPULATION AND
`MOTIONS AS MOOT
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 34, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46
`
`The Court GRANTS: (1) Vickie Sherman, Lezah Neville-Marrs, Katherine Loopers, and
`
`
`
`
`
`Jarred Johnson’s motion to relate Sherman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-CV-08721-JSW (N.D. Cal.
`
`filed Dec. 9, 2020), to the above captioned case, ECF No. 19; (2) Plaintiffs’ motion to relate
`
`Kupcho v. Facebook, Inc., No. 20-CV-08815-JSW (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 11, 2020); Dames et al. v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., No. 20-cv-08817-HSG (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 11, 2020); and Steinberg v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., 20-CV-09130-VC (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 17, 2020) to the above captioned case,
`
`ECF No. 34; (3) Jessica L. Layser’s motion to relate Layser v. Facebook, Inc., No. 21-CV-00337-
`
`VC (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 13, 2021) to the above captioned case, ECF No. 41; and (4) Facebook’s
`
`Case No. 20-CV-08570-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO RELATE; CONSOLIDATING CASES; SETTING CASE SCHEDULE;
`DENYING STIPULATION AND MOTIONS AS MOOT
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-08570-LHK Document 47 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`motion to relate Rosenman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 21-CV-00336-VC (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 5, 2021)
`
`to the above captioned case, ECF No. 46. The Court also concludes that Affilious, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., No. 20-CV-09217-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 18, 2020) is related to the above-
`
`captioned case pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b).
`
`
`
`The Court consolidates all of these class action cases. The Court sets the following
`
`deadlines in these consolidated cases:
`
`Filing of Motions for Appointment of Interim Lead
`Plaintiffs’ Counsel
`
`Initial Case Management Conference. The parties
`shall file a joint case management statement on
`March 31, 2021.
`Filing of Consolidated Class Action Complaint
`Filing of Response, likely a Motion to Dismiss
`
`Motions: March 5, 2021
`Oppositions, if any: March 10, 2021
`Hearing: March 18, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
`April 7, 2021 at 2 p.m.
`
`April 22, 2021
`Motion to Dismiss: May 20, 2021
`Opposition: June 17, 2021
`Reply: July 1, 2021
`Hearing: July 15, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`In the instant case, the Court denies as moot the parties’ stipulation to extend the answer
`
`deadline, ECF No. 45; Facebook’s motion to stay, ECF No. 38; and Facebook’s motion to shorten
`
`time, ECF No. 39.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 9, 2021
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No. 20-CV-08570-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO RELATE; CONSOLIDATING CASES; SETTING CASE SCHEDULE;
`DENYING STIPULATION AND MOTIONS AS MOOT
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket