Newell v. Apple Inc.

Background

Daniel William Newell proceeded without a lawyer and sought damages arising from what he described as a false arrest at an Apple Store. He alleged that Apple employees wrongly accused him of starting a fire in a bathroom, which resulted in his arrest. Newell originally sued Apple Inc., Police Officer Zackary Bloomfield, and the City of New York. The opinion states that Newell later settled with Bloomfield and the City, and that the claims against them were dismissed. Apple was the remaining defendant.

Apple moved to dismiss. Newell did not file an opposition brief, even after the court extended his deadline and warned that the motion would be treated as unopposed. The court nevertheless explained that it had to determine whether the complaint was legally sufficient rather than dismissing solely because Newell failed to respond.

Claim and analysis

The court construed Newell’s allegations as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right not to be falsely arrested. Section 1983 permits claims against persons acting “under color of” state law—meaning conduct sufficiently connected to the state to be treated as state action.

The court held that Newell’s allegations did not meet that requirement as to Apple. He did not allege that a state actor coerced Apple, significantly encouraged Apple, or conspired or coordinated with Apple in connection with the arrest. Without allegations connecting Apple’s conduct to state actors, the court concluded that Newell’s § 1983 claim against Apple failed.

Disposition

The court held that amendment would be futile and therefore denied leave to amend. Judge James Oetken granted Apple’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, directed the clerk to close the motion and the case, and ordered Apple’s counsel to serve the order on Newell by April 8, 2020. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.