Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc

Background

The court considered Apple Inc.’s motion for sanctions against Coronavirus Reporter Corporation, Calid Inc., and Greenflight Venture Corporation, along with Plaintiffs’ later-filed motions. The underlying dispute concerned allegations that Apple monopolized app distribution on its devices through App Store curation and approval practices and suppressed or excluded competing apps.

In an earlier related proceeding, the court dismissed similar claims against Apple with prejudice after finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded antitrust claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs later filed this case, which was transferred to the Northern District of California. On June 25, 2025, this court dismissed all of the claims in this case because the claims were barred by res judicata, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims that were resolved in an earlier final judgment. The court found that the issues were identical and that the parties were identical or sufficiently connected for res judicata to apply.

After the dismissal, Plaintiffs filed several motions, including motions seeking a stay, a public-input process, sanctions against Apple, and permission to seek reconsideration. The court also ordered Plaintiffs to explain why some of their filings did not violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Sanctions ruling

The court found sanctions warranted under Rule 11. Rule 11 requires a lawyer or unrepresented party filing a court paper to make a reasonable inquiry and certify that the legal arguments are supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law and that factual assertions have evidentiary support.

The court found that the complaint was frivolous because a reasonable investigation would have shown that res judicata barred the claims. It also found Rule 11 violations based on the content of later filings. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Keith Mathews, admitted using ChatGPT to generate an exhibit seeking Tim Cook’s resignation and submitting that exhibit three times. The court found that the exhibit had not received the reasonable review required before filing. The court also identified citations to nonexistent cases and inaccurate quotations in Plaintiffs’ filings and concluded that these defects violated Rule 11’s requirements for legal and factual support.

Apple requested $400,000 in joint and several compensatory sanctions, revocation of Mathews’s pro hac vice admission, and a pre-filing injunction. The court held that Apple was entitled to seek reasonable fees and costs directly resulting from the sanctionable conduct and ordered Apple to submit attorney declarations, time records, and a short explanation of the requested hours and costs. The order did not set a final dollar amount.

The court denied Apple’s request to revoke Mathews’s special admission and to impose a pre-filing injunction or otherwise declare Plaintiffs, Dr. Jeffrey D. Isaacs, and Mathews vexatious litigants. The court held that the requested relief required adequate notice and an opportunity to oppose it. The court stated that Apple could initiate a separate vexatious-litigant process that complied with those requirements.

Plaintiffs’ motions

The court denied Plaintiffs’ anti-SLAPP motion because the sanctions requests were based on federal law, while a federal court may consider a California anti-SLAPP special motion to strike only in connection with state-law claims.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion because Plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 11’s 21-day safe-harbor requirement. Plaintiffs acknowledged that they had not served the required advance notice and waited 21 days before filing the motion.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ stay-related motions. Because the court had already dismissed all claims, there were no pending claims to stay, and the only remaining issue was Apple’s sanctions motion. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that a stay was needed because Apple sought a nationwide injunction, noting that the court did not grant that requested injunction.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs relied on other orders, complaints, and a Ninth Circuit disposition, but the court found that none addressed res judicata, the basis for the dismissal.

Disposition

The court found sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel warranted under Rule 11, denied Apple’s requests to find Plaintiffs, Isaacs, and Mathews vexatious litigants, and denied Plaintiffs’ motions at Docket Nos. 74, 83–87, and 99. The hearing on Apple’s sanctions motion was vacated.