Miller v. Apple, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Miller v. Apple, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky addressed motions to strike, for default judgment, and to disqualify counsel without deciding the underlying case.
John W. Miller, Apple Inc., and Apple Inc.’s counsel, whose disqualification Miller requested.
What happened
In Miller v. Apple, Inc., John W. Miller asked the court to strike Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss his complaint. He also sought a default judgment against Apple and asked to disqualify Apple’s counsel.
The order explains that Rule 12(f) generally does not allow a court to strike a motion to dismiss because such motions are not pleadings. It states that Apple timely filed its motion to dismiss, and that Miller did not show that counsel’s notice of appearance one day later justified a default judgment. The order also says Miller’s default-judgment application did not follow the judge’s practices or the court’s local rules. Miller may oppose Apple’s motion to dismiss by April 8, 2025; Apple may oppose the request to disqualify counsel by April 4, 2025.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not decide the complaint’s underlying claims or the motion to dismiss. The opinion does not use an express grant-or-denial formula for the motion to strike, default-judgment motion, or disqualification motion; it explains the problems with the first two and sets a deadline for opposing the third.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01172
- John Cronan
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
Plaintiff John W. Miller moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike Defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Rule 12(f) concerns striking material from a pleading. The order cites decisions from the Southern District of New York holding that the rule does not authorize striking documents other than pleadings, including material in a motion to dismiss.
Miller also moved for default judgment against Apple. The court states that Apple timely filed its motion to dismiss. Miller did not demonstrate that Apple’s counsel filing a notice of appearance one day after the motion to dismiss established a basis for default. The order also states that Miller’s default-judgment application did not comply with Judge John P. Cronan’s individual practices or the court’s Local Rules. The court noted the strong preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than because of a procedural mistake.
Finally, Miller moved to disqualify Apple’s counsel. The order allows Apple to file a letter opposing that motion by April 4, 2025. It also allows Miller to oppose Apple’s motion to dismiss by April 8, 2025, with an explanation of why the court should reject Apple’s arguments.
Rulings and current status
The opinion does not state an express disposition—such as “granted” or “denied”—for Miller’s motion to strike or his motion for default judgment. It explains that the Rule 12(f) motion is improper under the cited district-court decisions and that the stated facts do not establish a basis for default judgment. It likewise does not state a final disposition of the motion to disqualify counsel; instead, it sets a deadline for Apple’s opposition. The court did not decide the merits of Apple’s motion to dismiss or the underlying claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.