Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-04597
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Gjovik v. Apple, Judge Chen dismissed the complaint for violating pleading rules, denied judicial notice, and allowed amendment.
Ashley M Gjovik’s second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, while Apple Inc.’s motions to dismiss and to strike were denied as moot. Gjovik was given a deadline to file a third amended complaint subject to a 75-page limit.
What happened
In Gjovik v. Apple Inc., Ashley M. Gjovik filed a second amended complaint against Apple Inc. The complaint was more than 650 pages long, contained 1,620 paragraphs, and asserted twelve claims. Apple had filed motions to dismiss and to strike it.
The court said the complaint did not provide the short, clear, and direct statement required by the federal pleading rules. The court also denied Gjovik’s request for judicial notice without prejudice as moot because the earlier motion it supported had been withdrawn and she could attach the materials to a complaint or submit a new request later.
Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend and limited any new complaint to 75 pages, excluding exhibits from being used to bypass that limit. Apple’s motions to dismiss and to strike were denied as moot, and Gjovik was given until February 27, 2024, to file a third amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Gjovik v. Apple Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-04597
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
The court addressed Gjovik’s motion for judicial notice and her operative second amended complaint. When Gjovik filed the judicial-notice request, she intended to use it both in opposing Apple’s motion to dismiss her first amended complaint and in supporting her second amended complaint. After she filed the second amended complaint, Apple withdrew its motion directed at the first amended complaint. Apple then filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the second amended complaint.
The court described the original complaint as more than 150 pages with 440 paragraphs and ten claims. The first amended complaint was more than 330 pages with 1,121 paragraphs and twelve claims. The second amended complaint was more than 650 pages with 1,620 paragraphs and twelve claims. The court also stated that treating the materials attached to the judicial-notice request as exhibits to the complaint would add approximately 1,500 pages.
Judicial Notice
The court denied Gjovik’s motion for judicial notice without prejudice as moot. The motion to dismiss the first amended complaint had been withdrawn, eliminating the need for the request in connection with that motion. The court also said Gjovik did not need a judicial-notice request to support the second amended complaint because she could have attached the exhibits to the complaint. The court noted that she could submit a new request in opposition to Apple’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Rule 8 Dismissal
The court dismissed the second amended complaint on its own initiative for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8 requires a pleading seeking relief to contain a short and plain statement showing that the claimant is entitled to relief, and it requires allegations to be simple, concise, and direct.
The court found that the complaint’s length, combined with its lack of clarity, made it difficult to follow. It said Gjovik devoted approximately 300 pages to detailed allegations about her relationship with Apple beginning in 2015, then addressed each of her twelve claims, sometimes relying on the earlier background and sometimes adding further detail. The court acknowledged that Apple had been able to respond but said the court was not in the same position and could not readily identify the claims from the pleading.
Disposition
The court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Any third amended complaint had to comply with Rule 8 and could be no longer than 75 pages. The court also barred the use of exhibits attached to the amended complaint to bypass the page limit. The court stated that even the original complaint had failed to comply with Rule 8.
The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike as moot because it had dismissed the second amended complaint. Gjovik had until February 27, 2024, to file a third amended complaint, and Apple had until March 26, 2024, to respond by filing an answer or motion or motions. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 35, 37, 41, and 42.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.