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

Heading: Apple I

Text: Nine Apple customers filed putative class actions against Apple and ATTM in the Northern District of California in the summer and fall of 2007. These actions were consolidated before Judge Ware as In re Apple AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation, No. 5:07-cv-05152-JW (N.D. Cal.) (Apple I). The plaintiffs in Apple I asserted claims under § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, among other claims. In 2008 and 2009, the district court denied motions by Apple and ATTM to dismiss the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. The district court certified a class on July 8, 2010. ATTM sought to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement it entered into with its wireless customers. The district court denied the motion, citing the then-applicable Discover Bank rule. 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1297–99 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148 (2005) (holding that, under some circumstances, class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are unconscionable)). In 2011, following the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which abrogated Discover Bank, ATTM renewed its motion to compel arbitration. Apple also moved to compel arbitration under ATTM’s agreement. The district court granted both ATTM’s and Apple’s motions to compel arbitration. 826 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2011). It held that because the plaintiffs asserted claims arising out of their agreements with ATTM, which WARD V. APPLE, INC. 7 contained arbitration clauses, the plaintiffs were “equitably estopped” from refusing to arbitrate “jointly” against ATTM and Apple. Id. at 1178–79.