In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Background

Consumer Plaintiffs Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter, Robert Pepper, and Edward Lawrence brought a proposed class action against Apple, Inc., alleging anticompetitive conduct and violations of the Sherman Act. They asked to file a fourth amended complaint adding a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The proposed claim relied on the same alleged anticompetitive conduct and sought injunctive relief and equitable restitution.

Apple separately moved to require the plaintiffs to submit a trial plan in connection with the pending class-certification proceedings. The Consumer Plaintiffs moved to strike that motion under the local rules.

Motion to Amend

The court evaluated the request using the principles of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16. Rule 15 generally concerns amendments to pleadings, while Rule 16 concerns changes to a court’s case schedule.

The court denied leave to amend. Under the Rule 16 analysis, adding the new claim would disrupt a schedule coordinated with two related cases. Class-certification briefing was complete, the schedule already overlapped with trial preparation, and adding the claim would require reopening the pleadings and likely lead to additional motion practice.

Under the Rule 15 analysis, the court found that the amendment would prejudice Apple because the proposed claim included additional theories, including a fraud theory, and new remedies. The court concluded that additional factual and expert discovery would be needed. The court also found undue delay because the Consumer Plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to amend, knew that related cases included Unfair Competition Law claims, and waited until after the court issued its decision in a related case before seeking to add the claim.

The court was not persuaded that the proposed claim would necessarily be futile, and it found that the prior-amendments factor weighed in favor of amendment but had little relevance here. It did not find bad faith, although it found no reasoned explanation or good cause for the delay. Balancing the factors and considering the existing schedule, the court denied the motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

Motion to Strike and Trial-Plan Motion

The court granted the Consumer Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Apple’s motion to compel a trial plan. The court concluded that Apple’s motion substantially presented arguments for denying class certification, including procedural and constitutional arguments. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), those arguments were required to be included in Apple’s opposition to the class-certification motion, but they were not.

Because the motion was stricken, the court denied Apple’s motion to compel a trial plan as moot and without prejudice. The court stated that the motion could be refiled in the context of trial if class certification were granted. The court also stated that any renewed motion would need to consider the class-action settlement in a related case and its possible effect.

Disposition

The court denied the Consumer Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint; granted the Consumer Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Apple’s motion to compel a trial plan; and denied without prejudice Apple’s motion to compel a trial plan as moot. The court terminated Docket Nos. 471, 487, and 544. It also vacated the scheduled hearing on the amendment and trial-plan motions, while stating that the class-certification and expert-testimony hearings would proceed as scheduled.