Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims against Apple concerning Apple’s operation of its App Store through alleged curation and censorship of smartphone applications. The claims included antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), breach of contract, and fraud claims.

On November 30, 2021, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice for failure to state claims and entered judgment. The plaintiffs then filed two motions: one by Coronavirus Reporter, Primary Productions, and CALID, and another by Jeffrey D. Isaacs. The motions sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

Legal Standards

Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances, such as newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. It cannot be used to relitigate matters already decided or to raise arguments or evidence that could have been presented before judgment.

Rule 60(b) similarly provides relief only in limited circumstances, including new evidence or extraordinary circumstances that prevented a party from timely correcting an erroneous judgment.

Analysis

Antitrust claims. The court had previously dismissed the antitrust claims because the plaintiffs had not alleged a plausible relevant market or antitrust injury. The plaintiffs again challenged the court’s rejection of their proposed “institutional app market” and related downstream markets. The court concluded that these arguments repeated arguments previously presented, did not address the court’s reasoning, and did not cite new facts or legal authority showing clear error.

The court also reaffirmed that the plaintiffs’ own allegations described the relevant market as a two-sided market involving app developers and end users. It further noted that the plaintiffs had not addressed independent reasons for rejecting their proposed markets, including the lack of sufficient clarity and insufficient factual support for alleged single-brand markets.

The plaintiffs also repeated arguments about reports concerning Apple’s app curation and raised a ranking-suppression theory of antitrust injury. The court said the reports had already been considered and rejected because the plaintiffs had not connected them to antitrust injury to the entire market. The court also declined to consider the ranking-suppression argument as a basis for reconsideration because it could have been raised before judgment. In addition, the court stated that the alleged ranking-suppression harm was not the type of harm the antitrust laws were designed to protect and noted that the plaintiffs had not alleged Apple used ranking suppression to favor its own competing product.

RICO and fraud claims. The court denied reconsideration of the RICO and fraud claims because the plaintiffs merely repeated allegations and arguments from their earlier filings. The plaintiffs did not explain how the court had committed a manifest error or provide legal authority undermining the court’s previous analysis.

Request to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs also sought reconsideration of the decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice so they could add allegations about proposed relevant markets and a newly reissued patent. The court rejected the request because the plaintiffs did not explain why the proposed market allegations could not have been included earlier. The court also found that the patent had no connection to the dismissed claims because the complaint had not asserted a patent-infringement claim.

Disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown clear error, manifest injustice, relevant new evidence, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Judge Edward M. Chen denied the plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 87 and 91.