Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 145

MOTION to Dismiss First Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed by AdMarval, Inc, Admob, Inc, Flurry, Inc., Mellenial Media, MobClix, Pinch Media, Inc., Quattro Wireless, Inc., TrafficMarketplace.com. 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 7/18/2011. Replies due by 8/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Beringer, Susan) (Filed on 6/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
S. ASHLIE BERINGER, SBN 263977
[e-mail]
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
FLURRY, INC. and
PINCH MEDIA, INC.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13

In re iPhone Application Litigation

Case No. 10-CV-05878 LHK (PSG)

14

CLASS ACTION

15

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOBILE INDUSTRY DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOBILE INDUSTRY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 10-CV-05878 LHK

1

The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Consolidated Class Action Complaint presented by

2

Defendants AdMob, Inc., Flurry, Inc., MobClix, Inc., Pinch Media, Inc., Traffic Marketplace, Inc.,

3

Millennial Media Inc., AdMarvel, Inc., and Quattro Wireless, Inc. (the “Mobile Industry

4

Defendants”) was heard on September 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. by this Court. Having considered all

5

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, oral argument of counsel, and all other

6

pleadings and papers on file herein, the Court finds as follows:
1.

7
8

California’s Unfair Competition Law to pursue their claims in this Court.
2.

9
10

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.

11
12

Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the United States Constitution and

Each of Plaintiffs’ separate claims against the Mobile Industry Defendants fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

13

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

14

1.

15

Class Action Complaint is GRANTED; and
2.

16
17

The Mobile Industry Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Consolidated

All claims for relief against the Mobile Industry Defendants are hereby DISMISSED

with prejudice without leave to amend.

18
19

Dated:

_________________________________
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOBILE INDUSTRY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 10-CV-05878 LHK