Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 16

Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 16

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW

Document 16

Filed 10/31/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Daniel M. Wall (Bar No. 102580) Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. (Bar No. 120965) Christopher S. Yates (Bar No. 161273) Adrian F. Davis (Bar No. 215827) 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111-6538 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION PAUL HOLMAN and LUCY RIVELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. C 07-05152 JW NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING [PURSUANT TO L.R. 3-13]

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW

Document 16

Filed 10/31/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O

Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby notifies the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-13, of the pendency of two actions which involve the same or similar subject matter and substantially all of the same parties as the instant case. On October 5, 2007, plaintiff Timothy P. Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Apple in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-07-CV-095781 ("Smith v. Apple"). As is true with the instant case, the Smith Complaint alleges that Apple's agreement with AT&T Mobility for iPhone wireless services, Apple's version 1.1.1 software release which allegedly disabled some unlocked iPhones, and other allegedly restrictive practices with respect to the iPhone constitute unlawful conduct. The Complaint alleges violations of California's Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 and 16727), California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (unfair competition), and common law monopolization. On August 27, 2007, plaintiff Herbert H. Kliegerman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a Complaint against Apple in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 111681/2007 ("Kliegerman v. Apple"). The Complaint was subsequently removed, on September 27, 2007, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1-07-CV-08404-PKC. The Kliegerman Complaint alleges that Apple failed to adequately warn iPhone purchasers that the iPhone was locked to only accept AT&T SIM cards, that SIM card unlocking codes would not be provided to iPhone owners, and that iPhone owners would incur roaming charges when traveling abroad. The Complaint alleges violations of New York General Business Law § 349. ///

1

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW

Document 16

Filed 10/31/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTO R N E Y S AT LAW SA N F R A N C I S C O

Apple believes that coordination or transfer of these actions will avoid conflicts, conserve resources, and otherwise promote efficient determination of the matters.

Dated: October 31, 2007

Respectfully submitted, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

By

/s/ Christopher S. Yates Christopher S. Yates Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.

SF\631763

2

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING CASE NUMBER: C 07-05152 JW