Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER Relating Cases; Order Consolidating Cases and Setting Case Management Conference re granting 27 Motion to Relate Case. Case No. C 07-05152 JW and Case No. 07-05662 RMW ARE RELATED. The Court sua sponte consolidates the two actions. All future filings shall be filed in C 07-05152 JW and bear the following caption: "In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation". The Court vacates all previous deadlines and case schedules. A consolidated Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Case Management Conference set for January 28,2008 at 10:00 AM Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. James Ware. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2007) Modified docket text on 12/3/2007 (ecg, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 07-05152 JW NO. C 07-05662 RMW ORDER RELATING CASES; CONSOLIDATING CASES; AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE / Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, filed on November 9, 2007. Apple moves the Court to consider whether Timothy Smith, et. al., v. Apple, Inc. et. al., No. C 07-05662 RMW, is related to the above-entitled action. Having considered Apple's submissions, the Court finds the two actions are "related cases" within the meaning of Civ. L.R. 3-12 because they involve substantially the same transaction and parties. Both actions allege causes of actions for anti-trust violations, monopolization, and unfair business practices stemming from Apple's exclusive agreement with AT&T Mobility, LLC ("AT&TM") regarding Apple's iPhone. The Smith action also includes purchasers of music and ringtones from Apple's iTunes store. However, the causes of action related to this additional group are not substantial when compared to the majority of the causes of action which pertain to the alleged anti-trust violations. Accordingly, the Court, sua sponte, consolidates the two actions. United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Since Holman is the first to filed case, it shall be the lead case. Plaintiffs' counsel for both actions are appointed Co-Lead Counsel. All future filings shall be filed in C 07-05152 JW and bear the following caption: In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation. The Court vacates all previous deadlines and case schedules. A Consolidated Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The parties shall appear for an Initial Case Management Conference on January 28, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of Court, the parties shall meet and confer, and file a Joint Case Management Statement by January 18, 2008. Dated: November 30, 2007 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California JAMES WARE United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Adrian Frank Davis adrian.davis@lw.com Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer Al.Pfeiffer@lw.com Arthur William Lazear awl@hoffmanandlazear.com Christopher S. Yates chris.yates@lw.com Daniel Allen Sasse dsasse@crowell.com Daniel Murray Wall dan.wall@lw.com Donald M. Falk dfalk@mayerbrown.com H. Tim Hoffman hth@hoffmanandlazear.com Max Folkenflik max@fmlaw.net Morgan Matthew Mack mmm@hoffmanandlazear.com David Eldon Crowe dcrowe@crowell.com M. Van Smith mvsmith@sbcglobal.net Dated: November 30, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?