You're viewing Docket Item 20 from the case Sterling International Consulting Group v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:








0
0
1
2
E
T
I
U
S


,



1
7
0
0
9








P
L
L
T
T
E
S
S
O
G
A
M
E
K
Y
D



A
I
N
R
O
F
I
L
A
C


,
S
E
L
E
G
N
A
S
O
L





E
U
N
E
V
A
D
N
A
R
G
H
T
U
O
S
3
3
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

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document20 Filed03/16/15 Page1 of 5



Daniel J. Stephenson, SBN: 270722
[email protected]
Vivian I. Kim, SBN: 272185
[email protected]
DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-1800
Facsimile:
(213) 457-1850

Attorneys for Defendant
LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STERLING INTERNATIONAL
CONSULTING GROUP, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, and
SUPERFISH INC.,

Defendants.

This document relates to:

RHONDA ESTRELLA,
SONIA FEREZAN, JOHN WHITTLE, and
ALAN WOYT on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,


Plaintiffs,



v.


LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., and
SUPERFISH, INC.,


Defendants.

CAPTION CONTINUED ON THE NEXT
PAGE



Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW

DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED
STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED

[CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]



Case No. 5:15-cv-01044-LHK





DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]

Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document20 Filed03/16/15 Page2 of 5

Case No. 3:15-cv-01069-DMR

Case No. 5:15-cv-01113-NC

Case No. 5:15-cv-01122-PSG





P
L
L
T
T
E
S
S
O
G
A
M
E
K
Y
D





1
7
0
0
9








0
0
1
2
E
T
I
U
S


,

A
I
N
R
O
F
I
L
A
C


,
S
E
L
E
G
N
A
S
O
L





E
U
N
E
V
A
D
N
A
R
G
H
T
U
O
S
3
3
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



This document also relates to:

KEN MARTINI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
and SUPERFISH INC.,

Defendants.

This document also relates to:

JGX, INC. d/b/a LEFTY O'DOUL'S,
individually and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated,


Plaintiff,



v.


LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, LENOVO
(UNITED STATES), INC., and
SUPERFISH, INC.,


Defendants.


This document also relates to:

STANLEY D. JOHNSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, and
SUPERFISH INC.,

Defendants.



CAPTION CONTINUED ON THE NEXT
PAGE





DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]

Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW





P
L
L
T
T
E
S
S
O
G
A
M
E
K
Y
D





1
7
0
0
9








0
0
1
2
E
T
I
U
S


,

A
I
N
R
O
F
I
L
A
C


,
S
E
L
E
G
N
A
S
O
L





E
U
N
E
V
A
D
N
A
R
G
H
T
U
O
S
3
3
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

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document20 Filed03/16/15 Page3 of 5



Case No. 5:15-cv-01125-LHK

Case No. 5:15-cv-01166-PSG

Case No. 3:15-cv-01177-LB

This document also relates to:

MICHAEL SIMONOFF, individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,


Plaintiff,



v.


LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.,
and SUPERFISH, INC.,


Defendants.


This document also relates to:

RUSSELL WOOD and THOMAS WILSON,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, and
SUPERFISH INC.,

Defendants.

This document also relates to:

MICHELLE BEHREN and MARY JANE
BARBOSA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,


Plaintiffs,



v.


LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., and
SUPERFISH, INC.,


Defendants.



CAPTION CONTINUED ON THE NEXT
PAGE



DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]

Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document20 Filed03/16/15 Page4 of 5



This document also relates to:

DAVID HUNTER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,


Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00819


Case No.: 3:15-cv-01206











P
L
L
T
T
E
S
S
O
G
A
M
E
K
Y
D





1
7
0
0
9








0
0
1
2
E
T
I
U
S


,

A
I
N
R
O
F
I
L
A
C


,
S
E
L
E
G
N
A
S
O
L





E
U
N
E
V
A
D
N
A
R
G
H
T
U
O
S
3
3
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

v.


v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., a
Delaware corporation, and SUPERFISH, INC., a
Delaware corporation,


Defendants.


This document also relates to:

ROBERT RAVENCAMP, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,


Plaintiffs,

LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., a
Delaware corporation, and SUPERFISH, INC.


Defendants.


Defendant Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo”) respectfully submits this Response in

Support of Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related.

Lenovo agrees with Plaintiff Sterling International Consulting Group (“Sterling”) that the

following cases, including two additional cases not mentioned in Sterling’s Motion, should be

related before Judge Ronald M. Whyte because they meet the Rule 3-12(a) standard for “related

cases”:

Case Name

Sterling Int’l Consulting Group v. Lenovo (United
States), Inc., et al.
Hunter v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.1

Case Number

5:15-cv-00807

Date Filed
2/23/15

5:15-cv-00819

2/23/15


1 A copy of the Hunter complaint is attached as Exhibit A to accompanying Declaration of Daniel
J. Stephenson in Support of Defendant Lenovo (United States), Inc.’s Response in Support of

1

DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]

Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW





P
L
L
T
T
E
S
S
O
G
A
M
E
K
Y
D





1
7
0
0
9








0
0
1
2
E
T
I
U
S


,

A
I
N
R
O
F
I
L
A
C


,
S
E
L
E
G
N
A
S
O
L





E
U
N
E
V
A
D
N
A
R
G
H
T
U
O
S
3
3
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

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document20 Filed03/16/15 Page5 of 5



Case Name

Case Number

3:15-cv-00964
5:15-cv-1044

Hall, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.
Estrella, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et
al.
Martini v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.
Johnson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.
JGX, Inc. d/b/a/ Lefty O’Doul’s v. Lenovo Group
Limited, et al.
Simonoff v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.
5:15 cv 01125
Behren, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al. 3:15-cv-01177
Wood, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.
5:15-cv-01166
Ravencamp v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., et al.2
3:15-cv-01206

4:15-cv-1069
5:15-cv-01122
5:15-cv-01113

Date Filed
3/2/15
3/5/15

3/9/15
3/10/15
3/10/15

3/10/15
3/12/15
3/12/15
3/13/15

All 11 actions listed above are putative class actions concerning substantially the same

events; namely, alleged injury caused by the installation of Superfish, Inc.’s (“Superfish”) Visual

Discovery program on certain Lenovo laptops. All 11 complaints name Lenovo and Superfish; 5 of

the 11 cases name additional defendants Lenovo contends are not proper parties to the dispute.

Based on the substantial similarity of the claims and allegations in the 11 actions, Lenovo

believes that consolidation before Judge Whyte would avoid conflicting results and avoid an unduly

burdensome duplication of labor and expense.


Dated: March 16, 2015































Respectfully Submitted,

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

/s/ Daniel J. Stephenson___________
Daniel J. Stephenson
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 457-1800
Fax: (213) 457-1850
[email protected]

Counsel for Defendant
Lenovo (United States), Inc.



PAS01\829915.1


Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (“Stephenson
Decl.”).
2 A copy of the Ravencamp complaint is attached as Exhibit B to the Stephenson Decl.

DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12(E)]

Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-RMW

2