Ward et al v. Apple Inc.
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 57 Motion to Dismiss; Setting Briefing Schedule for Summary Judgment. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2015)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ZACK WARD, ET AL.,
Case No. 12-cv-05404-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS;
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
Re: Dkt. No. 57
On September 15, 2015, defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 57.) Oral argument on the opposed motion was heard on December
14, 2015. The Court finds that defendant’s argument relies on an accompanying request for
judicial notice (Dkt. No. 58) of certain evidence that is not appropriate for consideration on a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. As the motion is inextricably linked to the overbroad
request for judicial notice, the motion is DENIED.
However, the Court will entertain a narrow motion for summary judgment by defendant
solely on the issue of whether the complaint alleges a relevant market. The motion shall be filed
no later than February 2, 2016, on a standard 35-day schedule. While the pre-filing conference
requirement is waived, the parties must otherwise follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil
Cases, including by submitting separate statements of material facts. In furtherance of addressing
the merits of the anticipated motion, plaintiffs shall each submit to defendant by no later than
January 8, 2016, declarations describing in detail the circumstances surrounding their purchases
of the iPhones and AT&T service plans in question, including whether the devices were acquired
separately from, and prior to, the service plans.
This Order terminates Docket Number 57.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2015
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?