Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 146

MOTION by Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC for summary judgment (Reynolds, Sarah)

Download PDF
Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al Doc. 146 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSE TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., a California Corporation, and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Georgia Corporation, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:07-cv-04946 Judge Kennelly Mag. Judge Ashman MOTION OF DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("ATTM") respectfully moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Jose Trujillo's claims against it. In support of this motion, ATTM submits the contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law, Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and Declaration of Caroline MahoneGonzalez, and further states as follows: 1. On July 2, 2007, plaintiff Jose Trujillo purchased an iPhone from a retail store owned and operated by defendant Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple"), the manufacturer of the iPhone. 2. On July 26, 2007, plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed a putative class-action complaint against Apple and AT&T, Inc. in the Chancery Division of the County Department of the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that the manner in which the defendants disclosed the details of Apple's battery-replacement program for the iPhone he purchased at the Apple store violates the 1 Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. He also raises a variety of common-law and breach-of-warranty claims. 4. 5. On August 31, 2007, Apple timely filed a Notice of Removal to this Court. On September 6, 2007, Trujillo filed an Amended Complaint substituting ATTM as a defendant for AT&T, Inc. 6. On September 23, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment to Apple on all of Trujillo's claims because, among other reasons, Apple in fact did disclose all of the allegedly concealed facts. 7. The same reasons that led this Court to reject Trujillo's claims against Apple also militate in favor of granting summary judgment to ATTM. In addition, ATTM is entitled to summary judgment on all of Trujillo's claims because ATTM was not a party to the underlying iPhone sales transaction. WHEREFORE, ATTM respectfully requests, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, that this Court grant summary judgment to ATTM on all claims against it. Dated: January 9, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sarah E. Reynolds Victoria Collado (#6204015) Sarah E. Reynolds (#6287186) Emily Emerson (#6292773) MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 782-0600 Fax: (312) 263-7711 Evan M. Tager (pro hac vice) Archis A. Parasharami (pro hac vice) Kevin Ranlett (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 2 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 263-3000 Fax: (202) 263-5000 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Emily M. Emerson, an attorney, hereby certify that on January 9, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION OF DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: James R. Rowe THE LAW FIRM OF JAMES R. ROWE & ASSOCIATES 205 West Randolph, Suite 1430 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 345-1357 Larry D. Drury LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 205 West Randolph, Suite 1430 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 346-7950 Patrick T. Stanton SCHWARTZ COOPER CHARTERED 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Penelope A. Preovolos MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Emily M. Emerson Dated: January 9, 2009 Attorney for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 4

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?