Opinion ID: 2812632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Apple II

Text: In 2011 and 2012, two new groups of Apple customers filed class action complaints in the Northern District of California. These actions were consolidated by Judge Ware as In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (Apple II). The consolidated complaint in Apple II alleged antitrust claims that were similar to the claims in Apple I. However, unlike in Apple I, ATTM was not named as a defendant in Apple II. Apple moved to compel arbitration on the same grounds it asserted in Apple I. The district court denied Apple’s motion, finding that the plaintiffs were not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate their claims against Apple. Unlike the Apple I plaintiffs, the court reasoned, the Apple II plaintiffs had pled their claims against Apple alone, without “intertwining” them with ATTM’s wireless service agreement. 874 F. Supp. 2d 889, 898–99 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Apple also sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7), arguing that ATTM was a required party under Rule 19. Id. at 899. In support of its motion, Apple submitted a declaration from ATTM’s counsel from the Apple I litigation. The declaration stated, in pertinent part: ATTM is aware of this litigation . . . . ATTM has an interest in this case, since the Consolidated Complaint alleges that ATTM is a monopolist and makes various allegations regarding the service ATTM provides to 8 WARD V. APPLE, INC. ATTM customers using iPhones . . . . However, ATTM has not intervened in this suit because, given the ruling in [Apple I], any such claims must be arbitrated. If ATTM were to be joined to this litigation, ATTM would move to compel arbitration . . . . In response, the district court held that ATTM was a necessary party. The court reasoned: [I]n order to evaluate Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims in regard to the alleged conspiracy to monopolize the alleged iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket, the Court will be required to evaluate ATTM’s conduct, insofar as Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that ATTM unlawfully achieved market power in that Aftermarket due to the conspiracy and thereby foreclosed other companies from entering the market. . . . Such an evaluation of ATTM’s conduct would necessarily implicate the interests of ATTM, which means that ATTM is a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19(a). Id. at 900 (citing Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843, 847–48 (11th Cir. 1999)). The district court ordered that the claim relating to monopolization of the voice and data aftermarket be dropped if ATTM was not joined. See id. at 902 n.29. Shortly thereafter, Apple II was reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The plaintiffs declined to join ATTM as a party in their amended complaint, which resulted in the dismissal of their voice and data aftermarket monopolization claim. WARD V. APPLE, INC. 9