In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Filing 88

MOTION to Dismiss and [Proposed] Order filed by Apple Inc. Motion Hearing set for 12/18/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Responses due by 11/16/2012. Replies due by 11/26/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wall, Daniel) (Filed on 11/2/2012) Modified on 11/5/2012 (cjl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Daniel M. Wall (Bar No. 102580)
Christopher S. Yates (Bar No. 161273)
Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659)
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16

IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

CASE NO. C 11-06714-YGR
RELATED CASE NO. C 07-05152-JW
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT APPLE’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

17
18
19
20

Date:
Time:
Place:

December 18, 2012
2:00 P.M.
Courtroom TBD

The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NUMBER: C 11-06714-JW

1
2

Before the Court is Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (“Complaint”).

3

The Court’s July 11, 2012 Order required the joinder of ATTM for the assertion of any

4

voice and data service aftermarket claim. As ATTM has not been joined, the Court hereby

5

DISMISSES the voice and data aftermarket claim (Count III) and grants Apple’s request for an

6

order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), striking all allegations concerning, and

7

requests for injunction based on, the voice and data aftermarket claim (Count III).

8
9

With respect to Counts I and II, concerning iPhone Applications, the Complaint fails to
allege that Plaintiffs have Article III or antitrust standing to pursue these claims. In addition,

10

Counts I and II fail to state a claim and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of

11

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Counts I and II.

12

The Court thus GRANTS Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. As

13

the Court finds that the defects in the Complaint cannot be cured, further amendment would be

14

futile. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

17
By __________________________________________
THE HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19

SF\1198356

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NUMBER: C 11-06714-JW