Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 142

MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Consolidated Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) filed by Apple, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Responses due by 7/25/2011. Replies due by 8/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McCabe, James) (Filed on 6/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

JAMES F. MCCABE (CA SBN 104686)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile:
415.268.7522
BRYAN WILSON (CA SBN 138842)
[e-mail]
TERESA N. BURLISON (CA SBN 230854)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile:
650.494.0792
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC., a California corporation

MICHAEL L. CHARLSON (BAR NO.
122125)
[e-mail]
MAREN J. CLOUSE (BAR NO. 228726)
[e-mail]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile:
650.463.4199
CHRISTOPHER WOLF (Admitted Pro
Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile:
202.637.5910

11
CLAYTON C. JAMES (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
One Tabor Center, Suite 1500
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile:
303.899.7333

12
13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
SAN JOSE DIVISION
19
20
In re iPhone Application Litigation,

Case No.

CV-10-5878 LHK (PSG)

21
[PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING APPLE INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
CONSOLIDATED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT

22
23
24
25

Date:
Time:
Ctrm:
Judge:

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
CV-10-5878 LHK (PSG)
pa-1470254

September 1, 2011
1:30 p.m.
4, 5th Floor
Honorable Lucy H. Koh

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Consolidated Class Action

3

Complaint (“the Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6),

4

and 12(b)(7). This motion to dismiss came on for hearing on September 1, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties in connection with Apple’s
motion, and the parties’ arguments at hearing on this matter, the Court finds:
1. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they fail to allege any particularized injuryin-fact that is fairly traceable to Apple.
2. Plaintiffs’ agreements with Apple also bar the claims plaintiffs attempt to state here

10

because in those contracts Apple explicitly disclaims the liability plaintiffs seek to

11

assert.

12

3. Plaintiffs fail to state cognizable claims for negligence, breach of the covenant of good

13

faith and fair dealing, or trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs also fail to state claims under

14

the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,

15

California Penal Code section 502, and California Unfair Competition Law.

16

4. Plaintiffs have failed to join app developers - all of whom are necessary and

17

indispensible parties - as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and joinder

18

of the tens of thousands of app developers is not feasible.

19
20

Therefore, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action
Complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED this _________ Day of _____________, 2011.

23
24
25
26

HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28
[[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
CV-10-5878 LHK (PSG)
pa-1470254

1