Opinion ID: 2812632
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interests Arising from Wireless Service

Text: Agreements with Customers Apple next contends that “the District Court will . . . inevitably have to interpret the terms of ATTM’s WSA with consumers, in ways that could affect and impair ATTM’s rights under that contract.” We reject this argument. The district court’s decision in Apple II undercuts Apple’s contention that interpretation of ATTM’s WSA is “inevitable.” The district court explicitly noted that “[the] Plaintiffs have not contended that any of their claims arise from ATTM service contracts,” 874 F. Supp. 2d at 899, and declined to “reach the question of whether [the] Plaintiffs must rely upon the WSA to advance any or all of their claims,” id. at n.21. Moreover, even if the district court ultimately interprets these WSAs, ATTM, as a non-party, will not be bound by the district court’s interpretation in subsequent proceedings. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971) (“Some litigants—those who never appeared in a prior action—may not be collaterally estopped without litigating the issue. They have never had a chance to present their evidence and arguments on the claim. Due process 3 Even if ATTM has some lingering contract interests, it may be appropriate for the district court to exercise its discretion to fashion the equitable relief in a way that avoids interfering with those interests, instead of dismissing the entire action. See Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co., 331 F. Supp. 92, 105–06 (C.D. Cal. 1971). WARD V. APPLE, INC. 29 prohibits estopping them despite one or more existing adjudications of the identical issue which stand squarely against their position.”). Lastly, we note that there is no copy of ATTM’s WSA in the record. It is therefore unclear what rights ATTM had under the WSA that might be affected by this action. Nor is there any evidence in the record suggesting that class members are still bound by the WSAs they signed during the class period. The complaint seeks certification of a class of consumers who “purchased wireless voice and data services for the iPhone from October 19, 2008, through February 3, 2011.” It is plausible that, more than four years after the last WSA in the class period was signed, many class members have entered into new WSAs with ATTM or other carriers. In sum, the record does not disclose whether ATTM’s WSAs with customers give it a legally protected interest in this action.