Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 165

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 113 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2020)

Download PDF
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 165 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 EPIC GAMES, INC., Plaintiff, 6 7 8 APPLE INC., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 13 14 Re: Dkt. No. 113 APPLE INC., Counterclaimant, 11 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS v. 9 10 Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR v. EPIC GAMES, INC., Counter-Defendant. 15 16 On November 10, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff and counter-defendant 17 Epic Games, Inc.’s (“Epic Games”) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was fully 18 briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 113, 129, 135.) For the reasons stated on the record, and confirmed herein, 19 having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Court 20 GRANTS Epic Games’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See JRS Products, Inc. v. 21 Matsushita Electr. Corp. of Am., 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 183 (2004) (“[W]rongful or not, the 22 termination [of the contract] is not ‘independent’ of [defendant’s] interference with [plaintiff’s] 23 interest. . . . [A] breach of contract claim cannot be transmuted into tort liability by claiming that 24 the breach interfered with the promisee’s business.”); Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLP, 184 25 Cal.App.4th 38, 45 (2010) (“Neither legal title nor absolute ownership of the property is 26 necessary. . . . A party need only allege it is ‘entitled to immediate possession at the time of 27 conversion. . . .’ . . . However, a mere contractual right of payment, without more, will not 28 suffice.”). Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 165 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 2 1 Accordingly, defendant and counterclaimant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) counterclaims for 2 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count IV) and Conversion (Count 3 V) are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Apple’s requests for punitive damages are also 4 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 18, 2020 7 8 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?