Jenkins et al v. Apple, Inc

Filing 27

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Koh on 7/1/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CHRISTINA JENKINS and JESSICA VEFFER, )
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly )
situation,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
APPLE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT
(re: dkt. #17)

On April 14, 2011, Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) removed this action to federal court

18

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 USC § 1332(d).

19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this action to state court. See Dkt. #17.

20

Apple has filed a statement of non-opposition, informing the Court that it does not oppose remand.

21

See Dkt. #26. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter appropriate for

22

resolution without oral argument and vacates the July 21, 2011 hearing. For the reasons explained

23

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and REMANDS this action to Santa

24

Clara County Superior Court.

25

I.

26

On March 15, 2011, Plaintiffs Christina Jenkins and Jessica Veffer filed a putative class

27

action Complaint for equitable relief in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County against Apple,

28

alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et

Background

1
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER REMANDING CASE

seq.(“Section 17200”), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code § 1750 et

2

seq. Plaintiffs allege unfair business practices in connection with the sale of software applications

3

(“apps”) for Apple’s iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices through the Apple App Store. Compl.

4

¶¶ 1-4. Plaintiffs each downloaded the same app, a game called Angry Birds, from the Apple App

5

Store with the expectation that the app would not “unnecessarily access[] or transmit[] data from

6

their iPhone[s].” Id. at ¶¶ 26-28. Plaintiffs later learned that the app transmitted various

7

individualized data from their iPhones to third parties without their informed consent. Id. at ¶ 29.

8

Plaintiffs allege that Apple’s practices constitute “fraudulent practices and are likely to deceive the

9

consumer.” Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, and only injunctive relief, requiring Apple

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

to either cease offering apps which unnecessarily access and transmit user data, or to conspicuously

11

inform consumers about the transmissions if an app does transmit such data. Id. at ¶¶ 44-45, 51-52.

12
13

II.

Legal Standards
A. Remand

14

Every federal court has an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction.

15

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). In the case of a removed action, if it

16

appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court

17

must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The removal statute is strictly

18

construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” See

19

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles,

20

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because of the “strong presumption” against removal

21

jurisdiction, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts to support jurisdiction. See

22

Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67.

23
24

B. Article III Standing
“[A] suit brought by a plaintiff without Article III standing is not a ‘case or controversy,’

25

and an Article III federal court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.” Cetacean

26

Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to have standing under Article III, “a

27

plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

28

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable

2

judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” See Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S.Ct.

3

1142, 1149 (2009). Moreover, plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief “must demonstrate that they are

4

realistically threatened by a repetition of the violation.” See Gest v. Bradbury, 443 F.3d 1177,

5

1181 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original).

6

III.

Analysis

7

Apple’s one sentence statement of non-opposition does not explain why it does not oppose

8

remand even though it was the party that removed the case in the first place, and certainly does not

9

meet its burden of establishing facts to support subject matter jurisdiction. The Court is left to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

consider only Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that they lack Article

11

III standing. The Court agrees.1

12

Plaintiffs’ Complaint states only two causes of action against Apple, one for injunctive

13

relief under Section 17200 and the other for injunctive relief under the CLRA. Plaintiffs

14

acknowledge that their claims are based entirely on past transactions, and concede that they do not

15

face any realistic threat of future injury from Apple’s allegedly unfair business practices. See

16

Laster v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116228, *10-11 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009) (a

17

threat of future injury to unnamed class members does not confer jurisdiction); see also Hodgers-

18

Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (“system-wide injunctive relief is not

19

available based on alleged injuries to unnamed members of a proposed class”). Although Plaintiffs

20

may have viable state law claims in state courts even with knowledge of the alleged unfair business

21

practices, such knowledge means that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing for their injunctive relief

22

claims in federal court. See In re Intel Laptop Battery Litigation, No. C 09-CV-02889, Dkt. #187

23

at 3 (N.D. Cal. April 7, 2011) (“if a plaintiff has knowledge of a defendant’s practices, that plaintiff

24

cannot have standing to seek injunctive relief to redress injuries caused by those practices, because

25

the plaintiff’s knowledge precludes him from showing a likelihood of being injured in the future by

26
27
28

1

In their motion to remand, Plaintiffs also argued that a forum selection clause in the App
Store Terms and Conditions requires that the case be remanded to state court. See Pls.’ Mot. to
Remand at 2 (arguing that the forum selection clause provides that disputes should be adjudicated
in the “courts of the State of California”). Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing, the Court does not address the forum selection clause argument.
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

those practices”); see also Laster, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116228, *10 (“Plaintiffs’ knowledge

2

precludes them from showing likelihood of future injury.”).

3

On these uncontested allegations, Plaintiffs’ claims should be remanded to state court.

4

IV.

5

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and REMANDS this action

Conclusion

6

to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Clerk shall close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: July 1, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER REMANDING CASE