Brar v. Apple Inc.

Background

Tanbeer Singh Brar, who represented himself, filed a complaint against Apple Inc. and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. He also asked for permission to file electronically and to waive fees and charges for the court’s electronic filing system and other court services.

Brar’s complaint sought $103 million. He described the main grounds as alleged violations involving privacy, policies, securities, and his data. He also alleged that Apple withheld rights to products, took data stored on his iPhones and iCloud accounts, owed him payment for work or contributions related to iPhone security and safety, withheld hardware, software, and product information, and promoted a crime. The opinion states that Brar also referred to a state family-court matter and a case pending in the Eastern District of California, but indicated that those matters did not concern the claims in this case.

Fee-Waiver Application and Service

The court found Brar’s application incomplete because he did not answer questions about any automobiles he owned, bank accounts, monthly expenses, or other debts. The court directed him to file a complete application by September 30, 2025 if he wanted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. If he did not file a complete application, the court could order him to pay the filing fee. Brar could instead pay the filing fee by that date.

The order also stayed service of process, meaning Apple was not required to be formally served while the court addressed the application and screened the complaint.

Complaint Screening

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It also explained that diversity jurisdiction requires more than $75,000 in controversy and citizenship in different states. The court stated that the complaint did not identify a basis for federal-question jurisdiction. It also indicated that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Brar stated that he lives in California and Apple is a California corporation.

The court further concluded that the complaint’s vague and disparate allegations did not state a cognizable claim or plausibly establish that Apple was liable for Brar’s alleged injuries or that he was entitled to relief. The court reached this conclusion while screening the complaint; it did not decide the underlying merits of Brar’s allegations.

Ruling and Required Next Steps

The court directed Brar to file an amended complaint addressing the jurisdictional and pleading problems by September 30, 2025. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number in the order and include the words “First Amended Complaint” on its first page. If Brar failed to file it on time, or if it did not correct all identified defects, the court stated that it could reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. The order did not dismiss the complaint at that time.