You're viewing Docket Item 37 from the case Sterling International Consulting Group v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page1 of 9

(cid:13)(cid:40)(cid:16)(cid:41)(cid:44)(cid:47)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:13)



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
STAY


Case No. 5:15-cv-00819-RMW














t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

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

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

Plaintiffs,

v.

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


This document relates to:

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


v.

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


Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.



CAPTION CONTINUED ON THE NEXT
PAGE

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

1



Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page2 of 9



Case No. 5:15-cv-00964-RMW

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

Case No. 5:15-cv-01069-RMW

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

This document also relates to:

CHRISTOPHER HALL, MATTHEW
KELSO, MICHAEL MORICI, JAYNE
COSTANZO, RYAN BAUMGARTNER,
LAURA BURNS, THOMAS CARNEY,
BEATRIZ DAVIS, DENNIS HASTY,
WENDY DURAN and GABE DURAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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


Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page3 of 9



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

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

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

Plaintiffs,

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,


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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



Defendants.

Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page4 of 9



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

Case No. 5:15-cv-01177-RMW


Case No. 5:15-cv-01206-RMW

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

This document also relates to:

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


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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


This document also relates to:

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


v.

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



Defendants.

Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page5 of 9



Case No. 5:15-cv-01270-RMW

Case No. 5:15-cv-01432-RMW

Case No. 5:15-cv-01478-RMW

Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

This document also relates to:

SUSAN WEBSTER SCHULTZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated,


v.

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


This document also relates to:

THOMAS KIM, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,


v.

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


This document also relates to:

VINCENT WONG and
NAGASUBRAHMANYAM
KUMMARAGUNTA, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,


v.

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



Defendants.

Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

5



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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page6 of 9



Case No. 5:15-cv-01496-RMW

This document also relates to:

BILL CULLIFER, LIZ EDWARDS,
DOUGLAS IRWIN, JOSEPH GUERRA,
AUSTIN ARDMAN, HANK BAUMER,
THOMAS BEHRENDT, ALLAN BOGH,
RICHARD BROOKS, JILL CAZAUBON,
JENNIFER COLE, LAUREN
DANNHEIM, JENNIFER DAVIS,
EDWARD DRESSEL, CHRISTOPHER
DUNN, DONALD GEARHART,KENG
GEE, BRIAN GUTTERMAN, HEATHER
HARE, JOSE HIDALGO, NEERAJ
KALRA, RYAN KEMPER, JIM KOPPS,
RAJKUMAR KOTHAPA, MICHELE
LARGÉ , ARUL LOUIS, THOMAS
LUCAS, TOM MILLER, ERIC
MORETTI, TREVOR MURDOCK,
TRAVIS PALMER, ELIZABETH
PRATT, ROBERT QAKISH, TINA
RICHMAN, CANDACE ROSE,
DANIELLE ROUGIER, RAY
SCHMALZER, ZESHAN SHEIKH,
CHRIS SHOUTS, ALICE SPALITTA,
ZACHARY STEIN, CONNIE
SUPERNAULT,RUSS TAKLE, NATE
TALLEY, NIKOLAS THERIOT,
ARIELLA VASQUEZ, KATE WOODS,
KYLE YOUNGS, AND LIANGFANG
ZHAO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,


v.

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



Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

6



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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page7 of 9



Case No. 5:15-cv-01665-RMW

Case No. 5:15-cv-01712-RMW

Plaintiffs,

This document also relates to:

DIMITRIY KHAZAK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,


v.

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


This document also relates to:

ROSS M. BABBITT, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

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



Defendants.

Defendants.

Defendants Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc. move for an order staying all

proceedings in this case and the sixteen related actions (collectively, the “N.D. Cal. Lenovo

Adware actions”) pending the decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)

regarding coordination or consolidation of pretrial proceedings and transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407. Dkt. No. 29. At least twelve of the plaintiffs from the seventeen cases submitted a joint

opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay, see Dkt. No. 31, and Defendants filed a reply, see

Dkt. No. 34. Because the court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument, see

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court hereby VACATES the hearing on this motion set for May 15,

2015. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this

case, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a stay.

The N.D. Cal. Lenovo Adware actions make up seventeen of twenty-seven similar cases

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

7



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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page8 of 9



filed nationwide in nine districts, all of which arise out of allegations regarding the operation of

Superfish software installed on Lenovo computers. Dkt. No. 34, at 1 n.2. A motion for

consolidation and transfer is currently pending before the JPML, and the JPML will hold a hearing

on May 28, 2015 to determine whether the twenty-seven cases should be consolidated and

transferred to a single district, potentially the Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 29, at 4.

Neither the Defendants nor any named plaintiffs in any of the twenty-seven cases have opposed

consolidation. Id. Citing the prospect that continuing proceedings in the cases before this court

before the JMPL renders a decision on consolidation and transfer will unnecessarily burden

Defendants and this court with potentially duplicative and wasteful expenditure of resources,

Defendants move for a stay. Plaintiffs contend that pretrial proceedings will be useful regardless

of the JPML’s decision and that Defendants will not be prejudiced.

The court finds that: (1) a short stay is warranted under the circumstances so as to avoid

wasteful expenditure of judicial and litigant resources; and (2) a stay until the JPML renders a

decision is unlikely to prejudice either party.

JPML proceedings and the JPML transfer process are designed “to eliminate duplication in

discovery, avoid conflicting rulings and schedules, reduce litigation cost, and save the time and

effort of the parties, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the courts.” Manual for Complex Litigation §

20.131. Given the likelihood that this case will be consolidated and transferred by the JPML,

whether to this district or elsewhere, the court finds that judicial economy weighs in favor of

granting Defendants’ motion for a stay. Furthermore, requiring Defendants to comply with their

obligations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26(f) before the JPML decision would

be prejudicial given that the contours of the case may change following consolidation and transfer.

Finally, as the JPML is likely to rule on the question of consolidation and transfer in

approximately one month, a stay at this point in the proceedings will result in a very short delay.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a stay.





ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

Case5:15-cv-00807-RMW Document37 Filed05/12/15 Page9 of 9



IT IS SO ORDERED that: (1) the deadline for Defendants Superfish and Lenovo to

answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints in the above-captioned actions shall be

extended until forty-five days after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issues an order

deciding the Motion for Transfer and Consolidation, or as otherwise ordered by the transferee

Court if the Motion for Transfer and Consolidation is granted; (2) the parties’ obligations under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26(f) and any other pending deadlines—whether set by

the Local Rules of this District, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an order of this court, or

otherwise—in the above-captioned actions shall be stayed until further order from the court or the

transferee court if the Motion for Transfer and Consolidation is granted; and (3) the case

management conference set for June 19, 2015 is hereby vacated, and will be reset by the court if

any of the cases remain in this court.



Dated: May 12, 2015



______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge



ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
15-cv-00807-RMW

9



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


t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t



S
d
e
t
i
n
U


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N