Gallion v. Apple, Inc
Filing
66
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Jointly filed by Charlene Gallion. (Fazio, Jeffrey) (Filed on 3/16/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) (jlf@fazmiclaw.com)
Dina E. Micheletti (184141) (dem@fazmiclaw.com)
FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
San Ramon, CA 94583
T: 925-543-2555
F: 925-369-0344
Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice) (sas@chimicles.com)
Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice) (tnm@chimicles.com)
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
T: 610-642-8500
F: 610-649-3633
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
(Additional Counsel Listed at End of Document)
15
Penelope A. Preovolos (87607) (ppreovolos@mofo.com)
Andrew D. Muhlbach (175694) (amuhlbach@mofo.com)
Heather A. Moser (212686) (hmoser@mofo.com)
Samuel J. Boone Lunier (252732) (slunier@mofo.com)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
T: 415-268-7000
F: 415-268-7522
16
Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.
12
13
14
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
IN RE APPLE IPHONE/IPOD
WARRANTY LITIGATION
22
This Document Relates To:
23
All Actions
24
25
26
27
28
No. 10-CV-01610
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DATE: March 22, 2012
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
COURTROOM: 3
TRIAL DATE: Not set
1
2
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), the parties respectfully submit this
Joint Case Management Conference Statement.
3
Plaintiffs’ Statement:
4
The original complaint in Gallion v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-01610, was filed
5
in this Court on April 15, 2010, and was later consolidated with two related
6
actions, Corsi v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-03316, and Calix v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-
7
05895, each of which proposed a nationwide class of consumers who had purchased
8
an original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and/or iPod touch device (“Class
9
Devices”).
Another, related action had been filed in the Santa Clara County
10
Superior Court, Pennington, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 1-10-CV-162659, which
11
proposed a class composed of California residents who had purchased a Class
12
Device.
13
In each of these actions (collectively, the “Actions”), the plaintiffs alleged
14
that Apple had a policy of denying warranty claims on the ground that Class
15
Devices had been damaged by liquid based solely on a Liquid Contact Indicator
16
(“LCI”) that had turned pink or red, without inspecting Class Devices for evidence
17
of actual damage by liquid. Plaintiffs also alleged that because Apple relied on a
18
provision in its warranties by which coverage is excluded if the consumer causes
19
damage, Apple bore the burden of proving that the Class Devices had actually been
20
damaged by the consumer, and that Apple could not carry that burden because
21
LCIs are inherently incapable of establishing that a Class Device had been
22
damaged and because Apple failed to maintain records of the majority of these
23
warranty transactions in any event. Apple has answered each of the complaints
24
and has denied all claims of liability.
25
After nearly two years of extensive discovery that included the production of
26
hundreds of thousands of documents by Apple and by third parties (3M Company,
27
the inventor of the material Apple used for the LCIs, and AT&T Wireless
28
Corporation, which sold and provided wireless service for the iPhone), and the
-1JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)
1
depositions of witnesses employed by Apple and 3M, the parties have engaged in a
2
series of mediation sessions before Retired Magistrate Judge Edward Infante and
3
Catherine Yanni of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (“JAMS”).
4
Plaintiffs will attend the next mediation session on April 13, 2012, if
5
certain conditions have been met.
Plaintiffs believe there are issues that would
6
benefit from the Court’s assistance and are prepared to discuss the status of the
7
litigation in detail, including the status of the parties’ mediation efforts in
8
chambers, assuming that Apple agrees to do so notwithstanding the mediation
9
privilege.
10
11
Defendant’s Statement:
12
Given that the parties have attended several productive mediation sessions
13
and another session is scheduled for April 13, Apple sees no purpose to be served by
14
responding to plaintiffs’ statements respecting the merits (Apple’s view of the case
15
is set forth in prior case management conference statements).
16
mediation is ongoing, Apple does not believe it is appropriate to waive the
17
mediation privilege. Apple does not believe there are issues to be addressed by the
18
Court at this time, but of course will be prepared to address any issues that the
19
Court may wish to discuss.
20
DATED: March 16, 2012
21
22
23
24
25
26
FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
by
/s/ Jeffrey L. Fazio
Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043)
Dina E. Micheletti (184141)
FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: 925-543-2555
Facsimile: 925-369-0344
27
28
-2JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)
Because the
1
4
Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice)
Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice)
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: 610-642-8500
Facsimile: 610- 649-3633
5
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
6
Kimberly A. Kralowec (163158)
Elizabeth Newman (257329)
THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-546-6800
Facsimile: 415-546-6801
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Earl L. Bohachek (55476)
LAW OFFICES OF EARL L. BOHACHEK
One Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-434-8100
Facsimile: 415-781-1034
Rose F. Luzon (221544)
James C. Shah (260435)
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
401 West A Street
Suite 2350
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 235-2416
Philip Bohrer
Scott E. Brady
BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
25
John P. Wolff, III
Christopher K. Jones
KEOGH, COX & WILSON
701 Main Street
Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
26
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
27
28
-3JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)
1
DATED: March 16, 2012
Penelope A. Preovolos
Andrew D. Muhlbach
MORRISON | FOERSTER LLP
2
3
by/s/ Penelope A. Preovolos
Penelope A. Preovolos
4
5
Attorneys for Defendant, Apple Inc.
6
7
ATTESTATION OF FILER
8
9
I, Jeffrey L. Fazio, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
10
document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. See N.D. Cal. Gen.
11
Order No. 45 ¶ X(B).
12
13
14
15
Dated:
March 16, 2012
FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
by:
/s/ Jeffey Fazio
Jeffrey L. Fazio
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?