In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 88 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint with Leave to Amend. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

8

Case No.: 11-cv-06714-YGR
ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
COMPLAINT

9
10
11

Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

Consolidated Complaint. (Dkt. No. 88.)1 Plaintiffs allege antitrust claims based on unlawful

14

monopolization and attempted monopolization of an aftermarket for iPhone applications in violation

15

of section 2 of the Sherman Act (“Section 2”). Plaintiffs allege a third claim for conspiracy to

16

monopolize an iPhone voice and data services aftermarket in violation of Section 2 to preserve their

17

ability to challenge the previous dismissal of that claim.

18

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, the

19

arguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Apple’s Motion

20

to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Strike.

21

I.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

22

A.

23

Prior to the instant action, the Honorable James Ware presided over another class action

24
25

In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-05152 (“Apple I”)

involving defendants Apple and AT&T Mobility, LLC. (In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litigation,
1

26

Apple’s Motion to Dismiss contains a request to strike certain allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). The Court will refer to the request to strike as the “Motion to Strike.”

27

2

28

The following background section is not intended to provide an exhaustive factual or procedural
summary of this action or any related actions summarized herein.

1

Case No. 07-05152 (“Apple I”).) In Apple I, plaintiffs alleged five claims for violation of federal

2

antitrust statutes, in addition to violations of consumer protection laws. (See Dkt. No. 109 [Revised

3

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“Apple I Complaint”)].)3 Plaintiffs alleged that

4

Apple and AT&TM violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act in two ways: first, by “monopolizing,

5

attempting to monopolize or conspiring to monopolize the aftermarket for voice and data services for

6

iPhones in a manner that harmed competition and injured consumers by reducing output and

7

increasing prices for those aftermarket services.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Second, Plaintiffs alleged Apple

8

“monopoliz[ed] or attempt[ed] to monopolize the software applications aftermarket for iPhones in a

9

manner that harmed competition and injured consumers by reducing output and increasing prices for

10

those applications.” (Id. ¶ 11.)
Apple moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims because Plaintiffs had “neither alleged legally

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

cognizable markets under the Sherman Act, nor legally sufficient monopolization of those markets.”

13

(Order Denying Defendant AT&TM’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss; Denying

14

Defendant AT&TM’s Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant

15

Apple’s Motion to Dismiss [Apple I, Dkt. No. 144] at 12.) Judge Ware held that plaintiffs had

16

sufficiently alleged relevant aftermarkets, market power, and monopolization for both the voice and

17

data services and applications aftermarkets to state a claim. (Id. at 15–19.) In the same order, Judge

18

Ware also denied AT&TM’s motion to compel arbitration. (Id. at 6–10.)

19
20
3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Apple I plaintiffs alleged that prior to the launch of the iPhone on or about June 29, 2007, Apple
entered into a “secret” five-year contract with AT&TM, under which AT&TM would be the exclusive
provider of cell phone voice and data services for iPhone customers through 2012. (Apple I
Complaint ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs alleged they and class members purchased iPhones and agreed to enter into
a two-year voice and/or data service plan with AT&TM, but did not agree to use those services for
five years. (Id.) In effect, the undisclosed five-year exclusivity agreement locked iPhone users into
using AT&TM for five years, contrary to users’ contractual expectations. (Id.) In addition, plaintiffs
alleged that Apple “created a number of software programs called ‘applications,’ such as ring tone,
instant messaging, Internet access, and video and photography enabling software that can be
downloaded and used by iPhone owners.” (Id. ¶ 4.) Apple entered into agreements with software
manufacturers by which Apple approved their software applications for iPhone use in exchange for a
share of the manufacturer’s revenues. (Id.) Apple allegedly discouraged iPhone customers from
downloading competing third-party application software by refusing to honor warranties if customers
downloaded competing applications. (Id.)
2

1

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2010. (See Dkt. Nos. 240 & 289; Order

2

Granting Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for

3

Class Certification; Denying Folkenflik & McGerity’s Motion for Appointment as Co-Lead Counsel

4

[Dkt. No. 466] at 2 n.2.) The court certified a class of “[a]ll persons who purchased or acquired an

5

iPhone in the United States and entered into a two-year agreement with Defendant AT&T Mobility,

6

LLC for iPhone voice and data service any time from June 29, 2007, to the present.” (Id. at 25.)

to file motions to compel arbitration and to decertify the class. (See Dkt. Nos. 502, 504, 511 & 514.)

9

On December 1, 2011, Judge Ware issued an Order Granting Motions to Compel Arbitration and

10

Granting Motions to Decertify Class. (Dkt. No. 553.) On December 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a

11

Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration and/or in Addition to Amend the Order to Certify for

12
Northern District of California

Following the decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Court permitted defendants

8

United States District Court

7

Immediate Interlocutory Appeal. (Dkt. No. 554.) The Court certified “its December 1 Order for

13

interlocutory appeal solely as to the issue of whether a non-signatory defendant may assert equitable

14

estoppel against a signatory plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 564 at 12.) The Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’

15

petition for permission to appeal on April 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 570.)

16

B.

The Instant Action (“Apple II”)

17

1.

Procedural Background

18

Plaintiffs Robert Pepper, Stephen Schwartz, Edward Hayter, and Harry Bass

19

commenced the instant action on December 29, 2011 against Apple Inc. (Dkt. No. 1.) Apple filed a

20

motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012. (Dkt. No. 14.) Judge Ware consolidated this action with

21

another case, thereby mooting the motion to dismiss and re-naming the action “In re Apple iPhone

22

Antitrust Litigation” (hereafter, “Apple II”). (Dkt. No. 25.)

23

A Consolidated Class Action Complaint in Apple II was filed on March 21, 2012 (“Prior Apple

24

II Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 26.) There, Plaintiffs alleged that Apple entered into a secret five-year

25

contract with non-party AT&T Mobility, LLC (“ATTM”) that established ATTM as the exclusive

26

provider of cell phone voice and data services for iPhones through 2012. (Id. ¶ 2 (effect of

27

undisclosed agreement was to lock iPhone users into ATTM services for five years).) Apple allegedly

28

programmed and installed software locks on iPhones to prevent purchasers from switching to other

3

‘applications’” and released a software development kit in March 2008 that enabled independent

3

software developers to design applications for use on the iPhone. (Id. ¶¶ 4–5.) For an annual $99 fee,

4

the kit allowed developers to submit applications to be distributed “through Apple’s applications

5

market, the ‘iTunes App Store.’” (Id. ¶ 5.) Certain applications were made available for free in the

6

App Store, but for any application purchased, Apple allegedly “collect[ed] 30% of the sale of each

7

application, with the developer receiving the remaining 70%.” (Id.) Plaintiffs allege Apple refused to

8

approve developers who either did not agree to pay the annual fee or agree to the “apportionment

9

scheme.” (Id.) Apple also “unlawfully discouraged iPhone customers from downloading competing

10

applications software . . . by telling customers that Apple would void and refuse to honor the iPhone

11

warranty of any customer who downloaded Third Party Apps.” (Id.) Consumers “were not provided

12
Northern District of California

competing carriers. (Id. ¶ 3.) Apple also “enabled the creation of numerous software programs called

2

United States District Court

1

a means by which they could download Third Party Apps that were not approved by Apple for sale on

13

the App Store.” (Id. ¶ 6.)

14

In the Prior Apple II Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged three violations of Section 2 by Apple based

15

on two aftermarkets: (1) unlawful monopolization of the applications aftermarket; (2) attempted

16

monopolization of the applications aftermarket; and (3) conspiracy to monopolize the voice and data

17

services aftermarket. Apple moved to dismiss the then-operative complaint and to compel arbitration

18

of claims. (Dkt. Nos. 37 & 48.) In the motion to dismiss, Apple sought dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.

19

P. 12(b)(7) on the grounds that (i) the complaint failed to name ATTM as a defendant, and (ii) ATTM

20

was a necessary and indispensable party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.

21

On July 11, 2012, Judge Ware issued an Order Denying Without Prejudice Defendant’s

22

Motion to Compel Arbitration; Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 75.) The

23

court held that ATTM was a necessary party and that in order to evaluate the alleged conspiracy to

24

monopolize the iPhone voice and data services aftermarket, it must evaluate whether “ATTM

25

unlawfully achieved market power in that Aftermarket due to the conspiracy and thereby foreclosed

26

other companies from entering the market.” (Id. at 13 (citing Prior Apple II Complaint ¶ 98).) “Such

27

an evaluation of ATTM’s conduct would necessarily implicate the interests of ATTM, which means

28

that ATTM is a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19(a).” (Dkt. No. 75 at 13.) The court also held that

4

1

it was feasible for ATTM to be joined “as this is a proper venue, [it] is subject to the Court’s personal

2

jurisdiction, and joinder would not destroy the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id. at 15.) As

3

such, the court ordered that ATTM be made a party to the action, but noted that Plaintiffs were not

4

required to maintain their claims based on the voice and data services aftermarket. (Id. at 16 n.29.)

5

Rather, if Plaintiffs sought to maintain the claim, the court explicitly ordered that ATTM be added as

6

a party. (Id.)

7

2.

8

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 28,

9

Operative Complaint

2012 (“Apple II Amended Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 81.) Plaintiffs “decline[d] to add ATTM as a

(Id. ¶ 8 (stating that the claim “has been retained in this amended complaint solely and exclusively to

12
Northern District of California

party, [and] thereby recognize[d] that the conspiracy to monopolize claim . . . will remain dismissed.”

11

United States District Court

10

preserve the right of Plaintiffs . . . to challenge the claim’s dismissal on appeal”); see id. at p. 20.)4

13

The remaining Section 2 claims in Apple II are based on the aftermarket “for software

14

applications that can be downloaded on the iPhone for managing such functions as ringtones, instant

15

messaging, photographic capability and Internet applications (the ‘Applications Aftermarket’).”

16

(Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 86.) Plaintiffs allege the Applications Aftermarket “came into

17

existence immediately upon the sale of the first iPhones because: (a) [it] is derivative of the iPhone

18

market; and (b) no Plaintiff or member of the Class agreed to any restrictions on their access to the

19

Applications Aftermarket. (Id. ¶ 88; id. ¶ 9 (Apple “failed to obtain iPhone consumers’ contractual

20

consent to Apple prohibiting iPhone owners from downloading Third Party Apps”).) Plaintiffs assert

21

their claims on behalf of a class of: “[a]ll persons, exclusive of Apple and its employees, who

22
23
4

24
25
26
27
28

Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar initiated a third action against Apple, Case No. 12-05404 (hereafter,
“Apple III”) on October 19, 2012. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act for
conspiracy to monopolize the iPhone voice and data services aftermarket. In other words, the sole
claim in Apple III was the conspiracy claim that Judge Ware previously dismissed in Apple II, upon
which Plaintiffs elected not to proceed. This Court related Apple II and Apple III. By stipulation of
the parties, this Court dismissed Apple III with prejudice for the reasons set forth in Judge Ware’s
Order in Apple II dated July 11, 2012, and entered judgment in favor of Apple. (Dkt. Nos. 23 & 26.)
An appeal of the dismissal and judgment in Apple III is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
5

1

purchased an iPhone anywhere in the United States at any time, and who then also purchased

2

applications from Apple from December 29, 2007 through the present.” (Id. ¶ 74.)

3

Plaintiffs further allege:

4

4.
Under its Exclusivity Agreement with ATTM, Apple retained exclusive
control over the design, features and operating software for the iPhone. To enhance
its iPhone-related revenues, Apple enabled the creation of numerous software
programs called “applications,” such as ringtones, instant messaging, Internet access,
gaming, entertainment, video and photography enabling software that can be
downloaded and used by iPhone owners.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

5.
In March 2008, Apple released a “software development kit” (“SDK”) for the
stated purpose of enabling independent software developers to design applications for
use on the iPhone. For an annual fee of $99, the SDK allows developers to submit
applications to be distributed through Apple’s applications market, the “iTunes App
Store.” If the application is not made available for free in the App Store, Apple
collects 30% of the sale of each application, with the developer receiving the
remaining 70%. On information and belief, throughout the Class Period, Apple
refused to “approve” any application by a developer who did not pay the annual fee
or agree to Apple's apportionment scheme. Apple also unlawfully discouraged
iPhone customers from downloading competing applications software (hereafter
“Third Party Apps”) by telling customers that Apple would void and refuse to honor
the iPhone warranty of any customer who downloaded Third Party Apps.
6.
iPhone consumers were not provided a means by which they could download
Third Party Apps that were not approved by Apple for sale on the App Store.
7.
Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced
output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarket[] for
. . . iPhone software applications.
(Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4–7 (emphasis supplied).)
Plaintiffs allege that by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the software applications

22

aftermarket for iPhones, it has “harmed competition and injured consumers by reducing output and

23

increasing prices for those applications.” (Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis supplied).) Apple has, by design,

24

programmed the iPhone such that iPhone purchasers are “prevented . . . from downloading any Third

25

Party Apps offered by software manufacturers who did not share their revenues with Apple or pay a

26

fee to Apple to sell through iTunes.” (Id. ¶ 50.) Third Party Apps appeared immediately after the

27

iPhone 2G was launched and “generated competition for Apple in the applications aftermarket.” (Id.

28

¶ 67.) Further, Apple faced “competition for iPhone ringtones. When a customer purchased a song

6

1

for $1 from the Apple iTunes store, Apple charged the customer an additional 99 cents to convert any

2

portion of that song into a ringtone.” (Id. ¶ 68.) On the other hand, competing programmers sought to

3

offer a variety of ringtone programs offering free downloads. (Id.) Apple initially sought to eliminate

4

Third Party Apps, but “programmers of Third Party Apps quickly circumvented Apple’s locking

5

codes.” (Id. ¶¶ 51 & 69 (Apple sought to update iTunes software to block third-party ringtone

6

programs).) “The availability of Third Party Apps for iPhones reduced Apple’s share of the iPhone

7

aftermarket for ringtones and other applications and greatly reduced or threatened to reduce Apple’s

8

expected supracompetitive revenues and profits in that aftermarket.” (Id. ¶ 70.) Put another way,

9

Plaintiffs allege that Apple’s anticompetitive actions have “reduced output and competition and

competition generally in that market.” (Id. ¶¶ 91 & 97 (emphasis supplied).)

12
Northern District of California

resulted in increased prices for products sold in the iPhone Applications Aftermarket and, thus, harms

11

United States District Court

10

II.

13

PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(f) are raised in this Motion.

14

Although there is no mandatory “sequencing of jurisdictional issues,” jurisdictional questions

15

ordinarily must precede merits determinations in dispositional order. Sinochem Int’l. Co. Ltd. v.

16

Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

17

526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999)). The Court therefore proceeds first with its jurisdictional analysis of the

18

pending Motion under Rule 12(b)(1), and will then proceed with Plaintiffs’ failure to add ATTM as a

19

party despite Judge Ware’s July 11, 2012 order, the Motion to Strike under Rule 12(f), and finally the

20

Rule 12(b)(6) portion of the Motion to Dismiss.

21

A.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

22

1.

Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

23

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) tests the subject

24

matter jurisdiction of the Court. See, e.g., Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039–

25

40 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1009 (2004). When subject matter jurisdiction is

26

challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v.

27

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that “the party seeking to invoke the court’s

28

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists”). Accordingly, the court will

7

1

presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the

2

motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 376–78 (1994).

3

Motions under Rule 12(b)(1) may be either “facial” or “factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v.

2000)). In a facial attack, the movant argues that the allegations of a complaint are insufficient to

6

establish federal jurisdiction. Id. By contrast, a factual attack or “speaking motion” disputes the

7

allegations that would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. In resolving a factual attack, district

8

courts may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a

9

motion for summary judgment. Id. (citing Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2). Courts consequently need

10

not presume the truthfulness of a plaintiff’s allegations in such instances. Id. (citing White, 227 F.3d

11

at 1242). Indeed, “[o]nce the moving party has converted a motion to dismiss into a factual motion by

12
Northern District of California

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

5

United States District Court

4

presenting affidavits or other evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the motion must

13

furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter

14

jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2). Further, the existence of disputed material

15

facts will not preclude a trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims, except

16

where the jurisdictional and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is

17

dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits. Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d

18

1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733–35 (9th

19

Cir. 1979)).

20
21

Because Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish standing, the
Court treats the pending Motion as a facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction.

22

2.

Article III Standing

23

Apple challenges Plaintiffs’ Article III standing. A plaintiff has Article III standing

24

when: (1) he or she suffers a “concrete and particularized” injury-in-fact; (2) there is a “causal

25

connection between the injury and the conduct complained of”; and (3) the injury will likely be

26

redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992);

27

Wedges/Ledges of California, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, Arizona, 24 F.3d 56, 61 (9th Cir. 1994). In

28

class actions, the named plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of standing. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

8

1

343, 357 (1996) (“even named plaintiffs who represent a class must allege and show that they

2

personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the

3

class to which they belong and which they purport to represent”) (internal quotations and citations

4

omitted). The absence of any one element deprives a plaintiff of Article III standing and requires

5

dismissal. See Whitmore v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 68 F.3d 1212, 1215 (9th Cir. 1995).

6

Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because no named Plaintiff alleges he

7

or she ever purchased an App or was overcharged; that any overcharge was the result of allegedly

8

wrongful conduct; nor that named Plaintiffs suffered any injury therefrom. (Mot. at 8.) Apple further

9

argues that Plaintiffs do not allege they were “unaware” of Apple’s Apps policies or misled regarding

10
11

the policies. (Id.)
Plaintiffs disagree and specifically emphasize their “collective[]” allegations that they have

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

been deprived lower cost alternatives, paid higher prices for “Apple ‘approved’ applications,” and/or

13

had their iPhones disabled or destroyed. (Opp. at 14; Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 92 & 98.) Five

14

of seven named Plaintiffs submit declarations in opposition to the Motion particularizing their

15

allegations of injury. (Opp. at 14.) In sum, these declarations state that named Plaintiffs purchased

16

iPhone applications from the App Store, “would have liked” the ability to download or purchase

17

applications “not available on the App Store,” and were not aware at the time of the iPhone purchase

18

that they would be limited to App Store applications nor that “Apple would charge . . . a fee for

19

purchasing applications equivalent to 30% of the purchase price.” (See Declaration of Michael

20

Liskow in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

21

Amended Complaint [“Liskow Decl.” (Dkt. No. 100)] at Exs. A–E, attaching declarations.) Each

22

declaration concludes with a statement (or substantively similar statement) that “[i]f the 30% fee is

23

proven to be an antitrust violation, or if my inability to obtain apps from sources other than the App

24

Store is proven to be an antitrust violation, I believe that I have been injured by such violations

25

because I was then overcharged for my apps and prevented from buying apps I wanted to download.”

26

(Id.; see also id., Ex. D (“I was deprived of certain apps and could have been overcharged”).)

27
28

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to
establish Article III standing. Notably, the Amended Complaint contains allegations that each named

9

1

Plaintiff purchased an iPhone and “paid for ATTM voice and data service for [his/her] iPhone at

2

ATTM’s stated rates during the Class [P]eriod.” (Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 13–19 (emphasis

3

supplied); id. ¶ 29 (“Each Plaintiff purchased one or more iPhones . . . [and] also purchased wireless

4

voice and data services from ATTM for their iPhones.”) (emphasis supplied); id. ¶¶ 30–32 (alleging

5

Apple failed to disclose information prior to the purchase of voice and data services).) The Amended

6

Complaint also alleges that four of the seven named Plaintiffs either “wanted to have the option of

7

switching” to another voice and data service provider and/or “would like the ability to unlock his SIM

8

card for international travel.” (Id. ¶¶ 33–36.) None of these allegations speak to named Plaintiffs’

9

standing with respect to the applications aftermarket claims.
Plaintiffs do not satisfy Article III standing with collective allegations that they have been

10

Northern District of California

deprived of lower cost alternatives, paid higher prices for Apple-approved applications, and/or had

12
United States District Court

11

their iPhones disabled or destroyed. (Id. ¶¶ 92 & 98.)5 At a minimum, Plaintiffs must allege facts

13

showing that each named Plaintiff has personally suffered an injury-in-fact based on Apple’s alleged

14

conduct. This requires that Plaintiffs at least purchased applications.

15

While the Plaintiffs’ declarations purport to provide information that may satisfy certain

16

deficiencies, the Court considers those declarations only with respect to whether leave to amend

17

should be granted.6 In this case, the Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate because additional

18

5

20

Moreover, based on Plaintiffs’ allegations, named Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing they satisfy
the requirements of the class they purport to represent—i.e., “persons . . . who purchased an iPhone
. . . and who then also purchased applications from Apple from December 29, 2007 through the
present.” (Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 74.)

21

6

19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As noted above, Apple does not dispute the allegations that would otherwise invoke federal
jurisdiction and thus raises a facial challenge to Plaintiffs’ claims. See Safe Air for Everyone, 373
F.3d at 1039. Plaintiffs cite two district court cases for the proposition that they are “permitted to
submit declarations buttressing their standing in response to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.” (Opp. at 14
n.5.) Neither case states a categorical rule that declarations may be considered in a facial attack under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In Nichols v. Brown, 859 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2012), the court
considered a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack on the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
court held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing because the complaint did not allege an injury-infact, but rather alleged only a desire to engage in a prohibited activity. Id. at 1128. The court
referenced plaintiff’s declaration to emphasize that—like the complaint—the declaration similarly
failed to allege an injury-in-fact. Id. at 1128 n.4. In Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor
Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2009), the court considered a factual attack on the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Notably, a prior order of the court permitted a
10

1

facts could be alleged to satisfy Plaintiffs’ Article III standing requirements. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at

2

560–61 (Article III standing satisfied where plaintiff suffers a “concrete and particularized” injury-in-

3

fact, there is a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” and the injury

4

will likely be redressed by a favorable decision). However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ allegations

5

showing injury-in-fact should not be conclusory in nature. (See Liskow Decl., Exs. A–E ¶ 8 (“[i]f the

6

30% fee is proven to be an antitrust violation, . . . I believe that I have been injured by such violations

7

because I was then overcharged for my apps and prevented from buying apps I wanted to download”

8

or “I was deprived of certain apps and could have been overcharged”).)

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion based on a lack of Article

10

III standing WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court requests that if Plaintiffs amend their complaint, the

11

document be captioned to reflect that it is a “second amended” complaint.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

B.

Plaintiffs’ Failure to Add ATTM as a Party on the Voice and Data Claim

13

Apple seeks dismissal of the voice and data aftermarket claim for failure to add ATTM as a

14

party, as required by Judge Ware’s July 11, 2012 Order. (Mot. at 5.) Plaintiffs concede in the Apple

15

II Amended Complaint that the third claim “remain[s] dismissed” and was retained in the complaint

16

“solely and exclusively to preserve” the right of appeal. (Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 8 & p. 20.)

17

In light of these allegations and the fact that the dismissal of this claim is now on appeal in Apple III

18

following a stipulated judgment by the parties, the third claim in this action for Conspiracy to

19

Monopolize the iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

20

C.

Motion to Strike

21

1.

Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides that the court “may order stricken from any pleading

23

any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “The

24

function of a [Rule] 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that

25

must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]”

26
27
28

renewed motion to dismiss “after an appropriate amount of discovery” had been taken to “fully
develop” arguments. Id. at 1175. Because the “speaking motion” was based on facts in the record,
the court considered the factual evidence presented and overruled defendants’ objections to exhibits
contained in plaintiff’s cross declaration. Id. at 1211.
11

1

Whittlestone Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Fantasy, Inc. v.

2

Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)). Motions to strike are generally disfavored (Colaprico

3

v. Sun Microsystem, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991)) and are not granted unless it is

4

clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the

5

litigation (LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).

6

Consequently, when a court considers a motion to strike, it “must view the pleading in a light most

7

favorable to the pleading party.” In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Sec Lit., 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D.

8

Cal. 2010). In deciding whether to grant a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), the court must start

9

with the rule’s plain language and determine whether the matter at issue is: (1) an insufficient

10

defense; (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous. Id. at 973–74.

Northern District of California

2.

12
United States District Court

11

Summary of Arguments

Apple moves to strike “all allegations concerning, and requests for injunction based on,

13

the voice and data claim,” which Plaintiffs effectively dismissed by not adding ATTM as a party per

14

Judge Ware’s July 11, 2012 Order. Apple contends these allegations are immaterial, impertinent, and

15

improper. (Mot. at 6.)

16

Plaintiffs argue that Apple has not shown the allegations regarding the voice and data services

17

and that aftermarket are scandalous, impertinent, or immaterial, nor is there any prejudice in the re-

18

pleading of that claim such that Plaintiffs preserve the claim for appeal. (Opp. at 2.)

19

3.

Analysis

20

The Court agrees with Apple that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding a dismissed claim

21

are, at a minimum, immaterial and impertinent. Plaintiffs elected not to proceed with their voice and

22

data services aftermarket claim, yet a significant portion of their allegations are still directed to

23

ATTM’s voice and data services. (See, e.g., Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 2 (undisclosed five-year

24

agreement between Apple and ATTM “locked iPhone users” into five years of service), 3 (Apple

25

installed software locks and prevented purchasers from switching carriers), 9 (consumers did not

26

consent to: using ATTM as data and service provider for five years; having phones locked such that

27

SIM cards of other providers would not work; not having access to unlock codes), 13–19 (named

28

Plaintiffs each purchased iPhone and paid ATTM for voice and data services), 25–49 & 52–55

12

1

(focusing on locking of phones with respect to voice and data services) & 56–66 (focusing on five-

2

year exclusivity agreement with ATTM).) In addition, Plaintiffs continue to allege a conspiracy with

3

third-party ATTM. (See, e.g., Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 55, 63 & 66.)

4

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Strike and ORDERS that Plaintiffs not

5

include allegations relating to voice and data services or a conspiracy with ATTM if a second

6

amended complaint is filed.

7

D.

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed against a defendant

10

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against that defendant. Dismissal may be

11

based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a

12
Northern District of California

1.

9

United States District Court

8

cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990);

13

Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533–34 (9th Cir. 1984). For purposes of

14

evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court “must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to be

15

true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Usher v. City of Los

16

Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Any existing ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the

17

pleading. Walling v. Beverly Enters., 476 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1973).

18

Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

However, mere conclusions couched in factual allegations are not sufficient to state a cause of

19

action. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986); see also McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845

20

F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief

21

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is

22

plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

23

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

24

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, “for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory

25

‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim

26

entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts

27

may dismiss a case without leave to amend if the plaintiff is unable to cure the defect by amendment.

28

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

13

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, generally, a court “may not consider any material

3

beyond the pleadings.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 998–999 (9th Cir. 2011)

4

(citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)). A court may, however,

5

“consider unattached evidence on which the complaint ‘necessarily relies’ if: (1) the complaint refers

6

to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no party questions the

7

authenticity of the document.” Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d at 999 (citing Marder v. Lopez, 450

8

F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006) and Lee, 250 F.3d at 688). In addition, Fed. R. Evid. 201 allows a court

9

to take judicial notice of “matters of public record,” but not facts that may be subject to a reasonable

10

dispute. Lee, 250 F.3d at 689–90; Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (judicial notice may be taken of facts not

11

subject to a reasonable dispute because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources

12
Northern District of California

2.

2

United States District Court

1

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”). Taking judicial notice of “matters of public

13

record” under Fed. R. Evid. 201 and consideration of documents “necessarily relie[d]” upon in the

14

complaint are two separate exceptions to the general rule that a court may not consider material

15

beyond the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Lee, 250 F.3d at 689–90.

16

Request for Judicial Notice

As part of its Motion, Apple seeks judicial notice of two press releases referenced in, but not

17

attached to, the operative complaint. (Defendant Apple’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its

18

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint (“RJN” [Dkt. No. 89]), Exs. 1 & 2;

19

see Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 5 & 76.) These press releases—entitled “Apple Announces

20

iPhone 2.0 Software Beta” (dated March 6, 2008) and “Apple’s App Store Downloads Top 25

21

Billion” (dated March 5, 2012)—are available online. Apple contends judicial notice is proper

22

because the documents are necessarily relied on in the complaint and Plaintiffs purport to summarize

23

the contents of the press releases therein. (RJN at 1–3.)

24

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or objection to the request for judicial notice, nor did they

25

object at the hearing to the RJN itself or defense counsel’s statements based on the contents of the

26

exhibits at issue.

27
28

While Plaintiffs have not disputed the authenticity of the exhibits, the Court finds it is not
appropriate to take judicial notice in this instance. The fact of the issuance of press releases may be

14

1

undisputed, but the contents therein may nonetheless be subject to a reasonable dispute. For these

2

reasons, the Court DENIES Apple’s Request for Judicial Notice.
3.

3

Antitrust Standing

4

a.

Illinois Brick Doctrine

5

In Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), the Supreme Court held

6

that “only direct purchasers have standing under section 4 of the Clayton Act7 to seek damages for

7

antitrust violations.” Delaware Valley, 523 F.3d at 1120–21 (citing Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 735).

8

Under Illinois Brick, “only the first party in the chain of distribution to purchase a price-fixed product

9

has standing to sue.” In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 911 F. Supp. 2d 857, 864 (N.D.

direct purchaser has ‘been injured in its business as required by [§ ] 4’ even though it passes on

12
Northern District of California

Cal. 2012) (“In re CRT”); In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]

11

United States District Court

10

‘claimed illegal overcharge[s] to’ its customers.”) (first alteration supplied) (quoting Illinois Brick,

13

431 U.S. at 724). Indirect purchasers are precluded from suing “based on unlawful overcharges

14

passed on to them by intermediaries in the distribution chain who purchased directly from the alleged

15

antitrust violator.” In re CRT, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 864 (citations omitted). While Illinois Brick

16

prevented offensive use of a “pass-through” theory by indirect purchasers, it also prohibited

17

defendants from using a pass-on theory to challenge the standing of direct purchasers. In re CRT, 911

18

F. Supp. 2d at 864; In re ATM Fee, 686 F.3d at 748.
Standing does not depend solely on a purchaser’s status as direct or indirect. Instead, standing

19
20

of indirect purchasers depends upon whether any of the recognized exceptions to the Illinois Brick

21

rule apply. In re CRT, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 865. In In re ATM Fee, the Ninth Circuit explained there

22

are three exceptions to the rule that indirect purchasers do not have standing: (1) “when a preexisting

23

cost-plus contract with the direct purchaser exists”; (2) where an indirect purchaser “establishes a

24
25
26
27
28

7

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 15(a) (“Section 4”), provides that “any person who
shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may
sue . . . and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a
reasonable attorney’s fee.” “The Supreme Court has interpreted th[is] section narrowly, thereby
constraining the class of parties that have statutory standing to recover damages through antitrust
suits.” Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.
2008).
15

1

price-fixing conspiracy between the manufacturer and the middleman” and the conspiracy “fix[es] the

2

price paid by the plaintiffs”—known as the “co-conspirator exception”; and (3) “when customers of

3

the direct purchaser own or control the direct purchaser” or “when a conspiring seller owns or controls

4

the direct purchaser.” In re ATM Fee, 686 F.3d at 749 (citations omitted).8

5

b.

Summary of Arguments Regarding Antitrust Standing

6

Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint impermissibly seeks

7

damages for injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as indirect purchasers, in violation of Illinois Brick.

8

Plaintiffs are “indirect victims of Apple’s policies” because the developers are alleged to pay Apple a

9

$99 annual developer fee and 30% of each paid application. (Mot. at 9.) Plaintiffs do not allege that

deprived of lower cost alternatives for applications; (b) be[ing] forced to pay higher prices for Apple

12
Northern District of California

their injury includes payment of the $99 annual fee. Rather, their injury consists of “(a) be[ing]

11

United States District Court

10

‘approved’ applications; and/or (c) ha[ving] their iPhones disabled or destroyed.” (Apple II Amended

13

Complaint ¶¶ 92 & 98.)
Apple relies heavily on In re ATM Fee, where ATM cardholders challenged certain fees

14
15

associated with use of ATMs not owned by their card-issuing bank, or a “foreign” ATM. (Mot. at 9–

16

10.) In re ATM Fee, 686 F.3d at 744–45. While cardholders paid certain fees for using a foreign

17

ATM, at least one other fee was paid by the card-issuing bank to the ATM owner (an “interchange

18

fee”). Id. at 745. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in horizontal price fixing by colluding to

19

fix this “interchange fee,” which was then passed on to plaintiffs as part of the foreign ATM fee paid

20

by cardholders to the card-issuing bank. Id. at 746. The district court held that the allegedly unlawful

21

(interchange) fee was not directly paid by cardholder-plaintiffs, and thus they were indirect

22

purchasers. Id. at 750. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that plaintiff-cardholders were indirect purchasers

23

and thus lacked standing under Illinois Brick. Id. at 750.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court that the co-conspirator exception

24
25

to Illinois Brick did not provide a basis for standing. That exception allows an indirect purchaser to

26
8

27
28

The Ninth Circuit also recognized a potential fourth exception that “indirect purchasers can sue for
damages if there is no realistic possibility that the direct purchaser will sue.” In re ATM Fee, 686
F.3d at 749 (noting, however, a lack of clarity regarding whether the exception exists).

16

1

sue when the direct purchaser conspires horizontally or vertically to fix the price paid by plaintiffs.

2

Id. In contrast, the ATM cardholders alleged that defendants fixed the interchange fee that was paid

3

between members of the ATM network and then passed along the artificially inflated fee to plaintiffs.

4

Id. at 750–51.9 In the Ninth Circuit, however, “the price paid by a plaintiff must be set by the

5

conspiracy and not merely affected by the setting of another price.” Id. at 754 (emphasis supplied).

6

Because it was not the case that defendants conspired to fix the actual price plaintiffs paid, the

7

exception did not apply.10

8

Apple argues that here there are no allegations that an actual price was fixed. All the allegedly

9

wrongful conduct is ancillary as it restricts developers only: the developer sets the price of the Apps in

downloaded Apps, and the developer pays the $99 developer fee. (Mot. at 10.) Thus, as was the case

12
Northern District of California

accordance with Apple’s policies, the developer agrees to pay Apple 30% of the price of any

11

United States District Court

10

in Campos, the alleged unlawful increase in price is caused by the antecedent transaction between

13

Apple and the developers. (Id. at 11.) The consumer’s involvement is therefore derivative of the

14

antecedent transaction and, consequently, they are indirect purchasers without antitrust standing.

15
9

16
17
18

The Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ argument that “conspiring to set a price for the purpose and
effect of raising the price at issue equates to fixing that price and makes the payers of the raised price
direct purchasers.” In re ATM Fee, 686 F.3d at 753; id. at 755 (declining to extend co-conspirator
exception beyond when the conspiracy involves setting the price paid by the plaintiffs).
10

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Apple also relies on Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166, 1169 (8th Cir. 1998) for the
proposition that indirect victims of exclusionary conduct are indirect purchasers who “bear[] some
portion of a monopoly overcharge only by virtue of an antecedent transaction between the monopolist
and another, independent purchaser.” In Campos, plaintiffs were music fans who sued Ticketmaster
for, among other things, engaging in price fixing with concert venues and promoters and
monopolizing (and attempting to monopolize) the market for ticket distribution servicers. Id. at 1168.
The district court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing under Illinois Brick,
which the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 1171–72. There, plaintiffs argued they were direct
purchasers of “ticket distribution services” because they paid directly to Ticketmaster service and
convenience fees. Id. at 1171 (Eighth Circuit noted that “like the Third Circuit, [it] d[id] not find
billing practices to be determinative of indirect purchaser status.”). The appellate court noted that
Ticketmaster had exclusive contracts with concert promoters that required venues to use Ticketmaster
for ticket distribution to those events; thus, plaintiffs’ alleged inability to obtain ticket delivery
services in a competitive market was the consequence of the “antecedent inability of venues to do so.”
Id. (“[T]icket buyers only buy Ticketmaster’s services because concert venues have been required to
buy those services first.”). This “derivative dealing” was the “essence of indirect purchaser status”
which, accordingly, constituted a bar to the antitrust claims for damages. Id.
17

1

Plaintiffs disagree. Plaintiffs contend under In re ATM Fee, direct purchaser status is

2

determined by “whether the plaintiff paid the alleged unlawful fee directly to the alleged wrongdoer.”

3

(Opp. at 12 (emphasis omitted).) Here, Plaintiffs allege they were “forced to buy third party

4

developers’ applications directly from Apple’s App Store, and that iPhone consumers were forced to

5

pay Apple a 30% fee on top of the cost for the apps.” (Opp. at 11 (citing Apple II Amended

6

Complaint ¶¶ 4–5) (emphasis added in Opposition).) As such, “they are direct purchasers and have

7

standing to sue under Ninth Circuit jurisprudence.” (Id. at 12 (citing In re ATM Fee, 686 F.3d at

8

754).)11
Plaintiffs emphasize that Apple ignores an entire category of apps alleged in the Apple II

9

(i) Apple-made Apps directly from Apple, and (ii) third-party developer Apps directly from Apple’s

12
Northern District of California

Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs are direct purchasers because they brought both

11

United States District Court

10

App Store. (Opp. at 11; see Apple II Amended Complaint ¶¶ 67–70.)12 An example of such Apple-

13

made apps were “songs converted into ringtones, for which ‘Apple charged the customer an additional

14

99 cents.” (Opp. at 11; Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 68 (“Apple also faced competition for iPhone

15

ringtones. When a customer purchased a song for $1 from the Apple iTunes store, Apple charged the

16

customer an additional 99 cents to convert any portion of that song into a ringtone.”) “In both cases

17

[of Apple-made apps and third party apps], consumers paid the supracompetitive price directly to the

18

monopolist – Apple – which kept the entirety of the overcharges for itself.” (Opp. at 11–12.)13 In

19

addition, Plaintiffs note that Apple attempts to convolute the allegations to make it appear as though

20

the app developers are the direct purchasers. (Opp. at 12.) This is not the case: Apple cannot be a

21

11

22
23
24

Plaintiffs acknowledge in their Opposition that they do not challenge the $99 annual fee paid by
developers to Apple. (Opp. at 12–13 (conceding Plaintiffs did not pay that fee themselves).)
“Plaintiffs challenge only the 30% fee that they paid directly to Apple.” (Opp. at 13 (emphasis
supplied).)

12

25

The Court notes that throughout the Opposition, Plaintiffs appear to cite to paragraph numbers from
a prior complaint, and not the operative Amended Complaint.

26

13

27
28

Plaintiffs argue that the Eighth Circuit’s holding in Campos v. Ticketmaster—that plaintiffs were
indirect purchasers even though they dealt directly with the alleged monopolist—is inconsistent with
Ninth Circuit precedent. (Opp. at 13.) In fact, Judge Ware in Apple I noted in his order granting in
part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification that “the Court is not aware of any Ninth Circuit case that
applied Illinois Brick in this manner.” (Apple I, Dkt. No. 466 at 19 n.27.)
18

1

direct purchaser because it does not buy the apps, but iPhone consumers buy the apps directly from

2

Apple because they are not otherwise available to purchase on an iPhone.

3

In its Reply, Apple contends Plaintiffs’ argument that iPhone consumers were forced to pay

4

Apple a 30% fee on top of the cost of the app is not reflected in the operative complaint, which only

5

states that for each paid app made available in the app store, “Apple collects 30% of the sale of each

6

application, with the developer receiving the remaining 70%.” (Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 5;

7

Reply at 8.) In other words, Apple does not charge consumers a 30% fee on top of the cost of the app,

8

but Apple charges the developers a 30% fee for the apps they choose to offer for a cost in the App

9

Store. (Reply at 8.) Apple argues this is identical to In re ATM Fee because this 30/70%

prices for their Apps, similar to how the “interchange fee” in In re ATM Fee was allegedly passed on

12
Northern District of California

“apportionment scheme” leads developers to pass on the 30% fee to consumers by charging higher

11

United States District Court

10

to cardholders as a “foreign ATM fee” that they directly paid. (Id. at 9.)

13

c.

Analysis

14

An analysis under Illinois Brick centers on whether the alleged unlawful fee

15

was paid directly or through a pass-through. The burden is on Plaintiffs to allege the theory and facts

16

upon which they are proceeding. The allegations in the Amended Complaint contradict the arguments

17

made in opposition to Apple’s Motion. The Apple II Amended Complaint does not allege a

18

“supracompetitive” or “fixed” price, but rather a mark-up. Plaintiffs allege throughout the Amended

19

Complaint that Apple’s conduct has “unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer

20

choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for . . . iPhone software applications.”

21

(Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 7; id. ¶¶ 11 (“increased price for those applications”), 91 & 97.)

22

Nowhere do Plaintiffs explain how Apple’s conduct results in increased “prices” or how said prices

23

were paid. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs confirm that they challenge “only the 30% fee” (Opp. at 13)

24

but also, for the first time, argue that “iPhone consumers were forced to pay Apple a 30% fee on top

25

of the cost for the apps” (Opp. at 11 (emphasis in original)).14 Because the Court’s analysis focuses

26

14

27
28

On this point, Plaintiffs cite to the complaint at paragraphs 4–5. The Court notes, however, that the
only reference to a 30% fee in this paragraph range does not provide that the fee is paid “on top of”
the cost of the application. Rather, it states: “Apple collects 30% of the sale of each application, with
the developer receiving the remaining 70%.” (Apple II Amended Complaint ¶ 5.)

19

1

on the actual allegations of the Amended Complaint, and those allegations do not sufficiently identify

2

the basis upon which Plaintiffs are proceeding, the Court declines to issue an advisory opinion

3

analyzing Illinois Brick as relevant here.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS leave to amend the complaint to address antitrust standing

4
5

and Illinois Brick.

6

4.

Other Arguments Regarding Failure to State a Claim

7

In light of the Court’s dismissal based on a lack of Article III standing, the Court

8

declines to address additional arguments raised by Apple. To the extent that Plaintiffs file a second

9

amended complaint, Apple may not raise for the first time on a future motion to dismiss any argument

10

that was previously available but not raised in this Motion.

11

III.

EFFECT OF PRIOR ORDERS

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

A.

13

Plaintiffs argue that Apple’s Motion is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), which

14

provides that “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a party that makes a motion under this rule

15

must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the

16

party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Rule 12(h)(2) states that failure to state a claim upon

17

which relief can be granted, to join a person under Rule 19(b), or to state a legal defense to a claim

18

may be raised: (A) in any pleading allowed or ordered under Rule 7(a); (B) by a motion under Rule

19

12(c); or (C) at trial. Rule 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks

20

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”15
Plaintiffs contend that Apple is barred from asserting lack of standing and failure to state a

21
22

Effect of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) on Pending Motion to Dismiss

claim because it failed to raise these arguments on either of the two prior motions to dismiss. (Opp. at

23
24
25
26
27
28

15

The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 explain the policy behind the prohibition
against successive motions: “This required consolidation of defenses and objections in a Rule 12
motion is salutary in that it works against piecemeal consideration of a case.” In addition, “[a] party
who by motion invites the court to pass upon a threshold defense should bring forward all the
specified defenses he then has and thus allow the court to do a reasonably complete job. The waiver
reinforces the policy of subdivision (g) forbidding successive motions.”
20

1

7–9 (arguing that claims based on applications aftermarket are the “exact same” as the Prior Apple II

2

Complaint and Apple was “fully capable” of raising its arguments earlier).)16
Apple responds that it is not barred by Rule 12(g) because the defense of failure to state a

3
4

claim and challenges to subject matter jurisdiction are never waived, and may be asserted at any time

5

before trial. (Reply at 3–4.)

6

Apple is correct that its defenses of failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter

7

jurisdiction were not waived if not included in its first Rule 12 motion. Such defenses may be raised

8

by a Rule 12(c) motion or at trial. However, Apple is incorrect to the extent that it implies it may

9

repeatedly make Rule 12(b) motions to assert such defenses. (See Reply at 4.) While specific

motions to dismiss. Successive motions under Rule 12(b) are generally not permissible and create

12
Northern District of California

defenses may not have been waived, Apple does not enjoy an unbridled ability to file successive

11

United States District Court

10

significant inefficiencies within the court system.
District courts in the Ninth Circuit have noted, however, that Rule 12(g) applies to situations

13
14

where successive motions are filed for “sole purpose of delay.” Kilopass Tech. Inc. v. Sidense Corp.,

15

No. C 10-02066 SI, 2010 WL 5141843, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) (citing Abarca v. Franklin

16

County Water Dist., No. 1:07–CV–0388, 2009 WL 1393508, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2009)); see

17

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“Rule

18

12(g) is designed to avoid repetitive motion practice, delay, and ambush tactics.”); see Davidson v.

19

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 09-CV-2694-IEG JMA, 2011 WL 1157569, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar.

20

29, 2011) (successive motions not brought for purpose of wasting time under Rule 12 where

21

defendants responded to multiple amended complaints). Even if a party files successive motions, a

22

court has discretion to consider the arguments to expedite final disposition on particular issues.

23

Davidson, 2011 WL 1157569, at *4; Allstate Ins., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1175 (noting substantial

24

16

25
26
27
28

Apple’s first motion to dismiss in Apple II sought dismissal for failure to join an indispensable
party. Judge Ware denied the motion as moot when he ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated
complaint. Apple’s second motion to dismiss re-raised the failure to join an indispensable party under
Rule 12(b)(7), and sought dismissal of the voice and data services aftermarket claim under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for conspiracy or to allege a cognizable aftermarket. Judge Ware
granted the motion for failure to join ATTM as a necessary party under Rule 12(b)(7) and denied the
Rule 12(b)(6) motion as premature without prejudice to renew on a different ground after joining
ATTM.
21

1

authority provides that “successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions may be considered where they have not

2

been filed for the purpose of delay, where entertaining the motion would expedite the case, and where

3

the motion would narrow the issues involved”).

4

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that Rule 12(g) bars the consideration of subject matter

5

jurisdiction in the pending Motion. Because the Court is obligated to dismiss an action in the absence

6

of subject matter jurisdiction—whether by its own motion or by motion of a party—consideration of

7

this issue promotes efficiency and expedites disposition of the action on the merits. In addition, the

8

Court notes that because Apple would be permitted to file a Rule 12(c) motion on the grounds raised

9

in this Motion, efficiency is served by addressing the issues sooner. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

10

1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (motion for judgment on pleadings to raise defense of failure to state claim

11

may be made even after filing answer).

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

B.

Collateral Estoppel

13

Plaintiffs argue Apple is barred by the doctrine of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel

14

from raising “the very same arguments it fully and fairly litigated but lost in a prior action.” (Opp. at

15

9.) Collateral estoppel “bars the relitigation of issues actually adjudicated in previous litigation

16

between the same parties.” Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992). A

17

party asserting collateral estoppel must show: (i) “that the estopped issue is identical to an issue

18

litigated in a previous action”; and (ii) that “the issue to be foreclosed in the second litigation must

19

have been litigated and decided in the first case.” Kamilche Co. v. United States, 53 F.3d 1059, 1062

20

(9th Cir. 1995), opinion amended on reh’g sub nom. Kamilche v. United States, 75 F.3d 1391 (9th Cir.

21

1996) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that because Apple fully raised and lost “each of the central arguments” on this

22
23

Motion before Judge Ware, it is precluded “from raising any form or variation of them again[,] not

24

just the precise arguments Apple made.” (Opp. at 9–10.)17 Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that Judge

25

Ware’s Order disposing of Apple’s arguments was sufficiently “final” for collateral estoppel purposes

26

because it was firm enough to be accorded preclusive effect. (Id. at 10–11 (denials of pre-trial

27

17

28

Specifically, Judge Ware held in Apple I that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged relevant
aftermarkets, market power, and monopolization for both the voice and data services and applications
aftermarkets to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 144 at 15–19.)
22

1

motions are “often sufficiently ‘final’ for collateral estoppel”).) Plaintiffs acknowledge that it is

2

within the court’s discretion to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel. (Opp. at 9.)
Apple responds that it is not barred by collateral estoppel because the claims in Apple II are

3

“apportionment scheme” as being a “core” allegation in this action that was not alleged in Apple I.

6

(Id. (further arguing that the primary allegations have evolved from consumers being unable to

7

download third-party applications to a dispute over the terms of permitting downloads).) In addition,

8

Apple disputes that any ruling by Judge Ware constituted a final judgment with regard to the pending

9

apps claims. (Reply at 7 (ruling was part of an interlocutory order).) Finally, Apple argues that the

10

ruling regarding the apps claims was not essential to any judgment because Judge Ware ultimately

11

ordered the action to arbitration. While “an appeal may be taken from Judge Ware’s arbitration order,

12
Northern District of California

not “identical” to Apple I. (Reply at 5–6.) Apple identifies the allegations regarding the 30/70%

5

United States District Court

4

and/or from the arbitrator’s decision if appropriate,” no appeal can be taken from Judge Ware’s

13

interim order on whether Plaintiffs stated their apps claims. (Id. at 7–8.)

14

The Court agrees with Apple that collateral estoppel does not bar its arguments here. The

15

allegations in the two actions are similar and significantly overlap, but not identical. Further, the

16

Court does not agree with Plaintiffs that Judge Ware’s order on a motion to dismiss is sufficiently

17

final, where the rulings could not have been appealed while the action was pending in this district and

18

Judge Ware ultimately ordered the action to arbitration. The Court hereby rejects Plaintiffs’ argument

19

that collateral estoppel bars Apple’s arguments on this Motion.

20

IV.

21

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated

22

Complaint is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as set forth herein. Plaintiffs’ second amended

23

complaint shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. A Case Management

24

Conference is scheduled for November 4, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. This Order terminates Dkt. No. 88.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: August 15, 2013

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28

23