Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc.

143
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 143 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 5

1 Alan Himmelfarb (Cal. Bar No. 90480)

LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
2 2757 Leonis Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90058
3 Telephone: (323) 585-8696
Fax: (323) 585-8198
4 consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
5 Scott A. Kamber
Ethan Preston
6 KAMBER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
11 Broadway, 22d Floor
7 New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
8 Fax: (212) 202-6364
skamber@kolaw.com
9 epreston@kolaw.com
10 Richard A. Lockridge
Robert K. Shelquist
11 Yvonne M. Flaherty
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
12 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
13 Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
14 rlockridge@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
15 yflaherty@locklaw.com
16 Counsel for Dennis Dilbeck
17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
19 NETFLIX, INC. a Delaware corporation, No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS
Judge William Alsup
20 Plaintiff,
No. C 07-00643 PVT
21 v. Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull
22 BLOCKBUSTER INC., a Delaware corporation, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
and DOES 1-50, CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
23 SHOULD BE RELATED UNDER
Defendants. CIVIL L.R. 3-12
24
DENNIS DILBECK, an individual, on his own
25 behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
26 v.
27 NETFLIX, INC. a Delaware corporation,
28 Defendant.
Administrative Motion to Consider 1 No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS
Whether Cases Should Be Related Under No. C 07-00643 PVT
Civil L.R. 3-12

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 143 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 2 of 5

1 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER

WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED UNDER CIVIL L.R. 3-12
2
Dennis Dilbeck, Plaintiff in case No. C 07-00643 PVT, Dilbeck v. Netflix, Inc., moves the
3
Court pursuant to Northern District of California Civil L.R. 3-12 and 7-11 to consider whether the
4
following cases should be related:
5
1. Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster Inc., No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 4,
6 2006); and
7 2. Dilbeck v. Netflix, Inc., No. C 07-00643 PVT (N.D. Cal. filed January 31, 2007).
8
Local Rule 3-12 provides that an action is related to another when they “concern
9
substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and [i]t appears likely that there will
10
be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
11
conducted before different Judges.” As Dilbeck's previous motion to intervene explained at
12
length, there is a substantial overlap in the facts at issue in Blockbuster's Walker Process antitrust
13
counterclaim and Dilbeck's Walker Process antitrust complaint. Both claims allege that Netflix
14
obtained U.S. Patents Nos. 6,584,450 and 7,024,381 through fraud. Blockbuster's counterclaim
15
alleges lost profits and lost goodwill arising Netflix's Walker Process violation, which arise from
16
Netflix's use of its Patents to delay Blockbuster's legitimate competition with Netflix.
17
(Blockbuster Countercl. ¶¶ 108, 117.) Dilbeck's complaint concerns not only Blockbuster's delay
18
in competing with Netflix, but the Patent's effect of restraining all competitors to Netflix, and the
19
monopolistic overcharges Netflix thereby secured. Consequently, there are grounds for the Court
20
to consider whether cases Nos. C 06 2361 WHA JCS and C 07-00643 PVT are related under Civil
21
L.R. 3-12(b).
22
DATED: February 7, 2007
23
By: /s/Alan Himmelfarb
24
Alan Himmelfarb (Cal. Bar No. 90480)
25 LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
2757 Leonis Blvd
26 Los Angeles, CA 90058
Telephone: (323) 585-8696
27 Fax: (323) 585-8198
consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
28
Administrative Motion to Consider 2 No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS
Whether Cases Should Be Related Under No. C 07-00643 PVT
Civil L.R. 3-12
 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 143 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 3 of 5

1 Scott A. Kamber
Ethan Preston
2 KAMBER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
11 Broadway, 22d Floor
3 New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
4 Fax: (212) 202-6364
skamber@kolaw.com
5 epreston@kolaw.com
6 Richard A. Lockridge
Robert K. Shelquist
7 Yvonne M. Flaherty
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
8 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
9 Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
10 rlockridge@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
11 yflaherty@locklaw.com
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Administrative Motion to Consider 3 No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS
Whether Cases Should Be Related Under No. C 07-00643 PVT
Civil L.R. 3-12
 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 143 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 4 of 5

1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I hereby certify that on February 7, 2007, I electronically
3
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
4
notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses on the attached attorney list for case No. C 06
5
2361 WHA JCS, and that this filing will notify the only other party in case No. C 07-00643 PVT.
6
DATED: February 7, 2007
7
By: /s/Alan Himmelfarb
8
Alan Himmelfarb (Cal. Bar No. 90480)
9 LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
2757 Leonis Blvd
10 Los Angeles, CA 90058
Telephone: (323) 585-8696
11 Fax: (323) 585-8198
consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 143 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 5 of 5

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
3 NETFLIX, INC. a Delaware corporation, No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS
Judge William Alsup
4 Plaintiff,
No. C 07-00643 PVT
5 v. Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull
6 BLOCKBUSTER INC., a Delaware corporation, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
and DOES 1-50, CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
7 SHOULD BE RELATED UNDER
Defendants. CIVIL L.R. 3-12
8
9 DENNIS DILBECK, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
10
v.
11
NETFLIX, INC. a Delaware corporation,
12
Defendant.
13
DECLARATION OF ETHAN PRESTON
14 IN SUPPORT OF DILBECK'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
16 1. Pursuant to Civil. L.R. 7-11, I consulted with counsel for Blockbuster Inc. and Netflix,
17 Inc. in case No. C 06 2361 WHA JCS as to whether they would stipulate to the Dilbeck's
18 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Under Civil L.R. 3-
19 12.
20 2. Netflix's counsel indicated Netflix would stipulate to the Administrative Motion;
21 Blockbuster's counsel indicated Blockbuster would not stipulate to the Administrative
22 Motion.
23 3. I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
24 Pursuant to Section X of the Northern District of California's General Order No. 45 on
25 electronic case filing and 28 U.S.C.§ 1746, in lieu of Ethan Preston's signature on this declaration,
26 Alan Himmelfarb attests that Ethan Preston is the signatory of this declaration, and that Ethan
27 Preston concurred to this declaration on February 7, 2007.
28 DATE: February 7, 2007 /s/Alan Himmelfarb
ALAN HIMMELFARB