Free MOTION to Relate Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
1 Eric H. Gibbs (State Bar N0. 178658)
[email protected]
2 Dylan Hughes (State Bar No. 209113)
Geoffrey A. Munroe (State Bar No. 228590)
3 Daniel T. LeBe1 (State Bar No. 246169)
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
4 601 California Street, 14th Floor
5 San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
6 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
7 Attorneys for Individual and Representative an
Plaintiff John Irvine
`
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 MARGARET A. GONZALES and BILLY JOE Case N0. 3:07-CV—2580—El\/IC
PATTON, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others
12 similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, ADl\/[INISTRATIVE MOTION TO
I3 CONSIDER WHETHER IR VINE IC
Plaintiffs, GENERAL MOTORS, E T AL. SHOULD
14 vs. BE RELATED PURSUANT TO LOCAL
RULE 3-12
15 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware
16 corporation, and ONSTAR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
17
Defendants.
18
19
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
20
21 JOHN IRVINE, on behalf of himself and all others Case No. 3 :07-CV-3651-MMC
similarly situated,
22
Plaintiff
23 vs.
24 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware
25 corporation; and ONSTAR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
26
27 Defendants.
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 3:07-CV—2580-EMC AND 3:07-CV-3651-MMC

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Plaintiff John Irvine submits this administrative motion to consider
2 whether Irvine v. General Motors, et al., Case No. 3:07-CV-3651-MMC, a putative class action lawsuit
3 filed on July 16, 2007, should be related to Gonzales, etal. v. General Motors, et al., Case No. 3:07-
4 CV-2580—EMC, filed on May 15, 2007.
I 5 Local Rule 3—12(a) provides that actions are related when:
6 (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property,
7 transaction or event; and
S (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome
9 duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases
10 are conducted before different Judges.
11 The Irvine and Gonzales actions satisfy that criteria. Each case is a proposed class action on
12 behalf of Califomia purchasers of General Motors vehicles containing OnStar systems, and each asserts
p 13 violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law} Both cases are
14 brought against Defendants General Motors and OnStar, and arise lrom Defendants’ notice to vehicle
i 15 owners and lessees that their OnStar communication systems are obsolete and, as of January l, 2008,
. 16 will no longer function.
17 There are notable differences between the two cases: most notably, the Irvine case seeks to
18 proceed on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers in addition to a subclass of California purchasers,
19 and the Irvine case alleges warranty claims in addition to violations of the aforementioned Califomia
20 statutes. On the whole, though, it appears likely that there would be an unduly burdensome duplication
21 of labor and expense or conflicting result if the two class actions were tried before different judges.
22 Plaintiff also notes, as it may be of some relevance to the issue of whether the cases should be
23 related, that Defendants OnStar and General Motors have moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
24 Litigation for an order centralizing the Gonzales action in the Eastern District of Michigan for pretrial
25 proceedings. That motion is set for hearing on July 26, 2007, in In re General Motors OnStar Contract
26 Litigation, MDL-1867, and if granted, the Irvine action would likely also be transferred to the Eastern
27
28 ‘ Copies of the respective complaints are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Geoffrey A.
Munroe as Exhibits A and B.
1
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 3:07-CV-2580-EMC AND 3:07-CV-3651-MMC

Case 3:07—cv—02580-TEH Document 17 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
1 District of Michigan for pretrial proceedings as a "tag-along action" pursuant to the Rules of Procedure
2 of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
3
4 DATED: July 19, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
5
6 GIRARD GIBBS LLP
7 By: é K $5 /4*..
8 Geoffrey A. Munroe
9 Eric H. Gibbs
Dylan Hughes
10 Dar1 T. LeBel
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
11 601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108
12 Telephone: (415) 981-4800
13 Facsimile: (415) 981 -4846
1 14 Attorneys for Individual and Representative
1 Plaintiff John Irvine
A 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 3:07-CV-2580-EMC AND 3:07-CV-365 1-MMC

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH

Document 17

Filed 07/19/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH

Document 17

Filed 07/19/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH

Document 17

Filed 07/19/2007

Page 3 of 3