throbber
Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
`
`tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`RICHARD J. DOREN, SBN 124666
`rdoren@gibsondunn.com
`DANIEL G. SWANSON, SBN 116556
`dswanson@gibsondunn.com
`JAY P. SRINIVASAN, SBN 181471
`jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`VERONICA S. MOYÉ (Texas Bar No.
`24000092; pro hac vice)
` vlewis@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.698.3100
`Facsimile: 214.571.2900
`
`
`
`
` MARK A. PERRY, SBN 212532
`mperry@gibsondunn.com
`CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (D.C. Bar No.
`492089; pro hac vice)
`crichman@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`ETHAN D. DETTMER, SBN 196046
`edettmer@gibsondunn.com
`RACHEL S. BRASS, SBN 219301
`rbrass@gibsondunn.com
`CAELI A. HIGNEY, SBN 268644
`chigney@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`Facsimile: 415.393.8306
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`Date: Nov. 16, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 1, 4th Floor
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 16’s Good Cause Standard Because They Were
`Not Diligent in Seeking to Add a UCL Claim .............................................................. 7
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 15 ......................................................... 10
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ Amendment Would Prejudice Apple ............................................. 11
`2.
`Plaintiffs Unduly Delayed in Seeking Leave to Amend ................................. 15
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment Would Be Futile ........................................ 17
`4.
`Plaintiffs Already Have Filed Five Iterations of Their Complaint ................. 18
`5.
`The Timing of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment Reflects Bad Faith ............. 19
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`i
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
`781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................11, 16
`
`Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. Of Higher Educ.,
`555 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`Albers v. Yarbrough World Sols., LLC,
`2020 WL 6064334 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020) .................................................................................19
`
`Allen v. City of Beverly Hills,
`911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) ...........................................................................................................10
`
`AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
`465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc.,
`861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................................12
`
`In re California Gasoline Spot Mkt. Antitrust Litig.,
`2021 WL 1176645 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ................................................................................17
`
`Campos v. Cty. Of Riverside,
`2016 WL 9173450 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) ....................................................................................6
`
`Castellucci v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2020 WL 4873869 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020) ..................................................................................6
`
`Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`735 F. App’x 924 (9th Cir. 2018), amended on denial of reh’g,
`733 F. App’x 404 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................13
`
`City of L.A. v. San Pedro Boat Works,
`635 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................11
`
`Davis v. 630 W. Broadway, LLC,
`2019 WL 2764118 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2019) ...................................................................................11
`
`Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.,
`2021 WL 3565428 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) ................................................................................17
`
`Domingo v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,
`2020 WL 5356657 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) ................................................................................15
`
`Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co. v. Glasforms, Inc.,
`2009 WL 667171 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009) ....................................................................................7
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`ii
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Dream Marriage Grp., Inc. v. Anastasia Int’l, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3024227 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) .................................................................................16
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co.,
`843 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1988) .........................................................................................................16
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
`316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Erica P. John Fund, Inc., v. Halliburton Co.,
`563 U.S. 804 (2011) ........................................................................................................................13
`
`Felarca v. Birgeneau,
`2014 WL 7140262 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014) ......................................................................9, 10, 17
`
`Freeney v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`2016 WL 5897773 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016) ..................................................................................18
`
`In re Fritz Comp. Secs. Litig.,
`282 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.,
`2021 WL 2520103 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) ..................................................................................18
`
`Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson,
`534 U.S. 204 (2002) ........................................................................................................................12
`
`Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc.,
`170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................7, 18
`
`Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc.,
`2021 WL 2021454 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) ................................................................................18
`
`Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC,
`2021 WL 811856 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2021) .......................................................................................9
`
`Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC,
`2021 WL 819159 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) .............................................................................17, 18
`
`Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii,
`902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................10, 11, 15
`
`Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.,
`186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. Cal. 1999) ......................................................................................................6
`
`James v. J2 Cloud Servs. Inc.,
`2019 WL 184330 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) .....................................................................................8
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iii
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Johnson v. Mammoth Recs., Inc.,
`975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................................6
`
`Jones v. Cty. Of Tulare,
`2018 WL 6271577 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018) ..................................................................................8
`
`Jordan v. Los Angeles Cty.,
`669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1981), judgment vacated on other grounds in
`Cty. of Los Angeles v. Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) .......................................................................16
`
`Ketab Corp. v. Mesriani Law Grp.,
`2016 WL 5920291 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) .................................................................................18
`
`Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Grp.,
`2021 WL 2864481 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) ...................................................................................17
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc.,
`194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................15, 17, 19
`
`Macias v. KDF Foxdale, L.P.,
`No. 5:18-cv-07712-EJD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77392 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) ........................14
`
`Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`Mortg. Indus. Sols., Inc. v. Collabera, Inc.,
`2013 WL 440644 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013) .................................................................................9, 18
`
`Nguyen v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
`2011 WL 2600998 (D. Or. June 30, 2011) .....................................................................................11
`
`In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig.,
`120 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. Cal. 2015)...........................................................................................13
`
`Novoa v. Geo Grp., Inc.,
`2019 WL 7197298 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019) ................................................................................14
`
`Pasha v. Viscosi,
`No. 2:19-cv-05672, 2020 WL 586821 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) ......................................................6
`
`Phan v. Sargento Foods, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2224260 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) ..................................................................................17
`
`Quezada v. City of Los Angeles,
`2018 WL 4378661 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) ..................................................................................6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iv
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ................................................................................17
`
`Royal Insurance Company of America v. Southwest Marine,
`194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) .........................................................................................................16
`
`In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Secs. Litig.,
`2018 WL 1517130 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018) ..................................................................................6
`
`Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`2021 WL 1839700 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2021) ..................................................................................11
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................................2, 17
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty.,
`708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Stein v. United Artists Corp.,
`691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Texaco v. Ponsoldt,
`939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991) .......................................................................................................9, 15
`
`In re Toll Roads Litig.,
`2018 WL 4945531 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) ...................................................................................13
`
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`278 F.R.D. 505 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................................................................................20
`
`United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.,
`848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Velazquez v. GMAC Mortg. Corp.,
`2009 WL 2959838 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2009) ................................................................................11
`
`In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,
`715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
`Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015) .................................................................6, 15, 18
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ................................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`v
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The long procedural history of this case provides reason enough for the Court to deny Consumer
`Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint—again. After the Epic case was filed, these
`plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint; and then the Court established an integrated and
`interlocking schedule for all three cases (Cameron, Pepper, and Epic). The Court expressly stated it
`wanted the benefit of the class certification briefing before ruling in Epic. Plaintiffs did not ask, and
`the Court did not order, that Plaintiffs could await the outcome of Epic and then play a mulligan.
`The possibility of a UCL claim was no mystery to Plaintiffs before they filed the instant motion.
`The Cameron plaintiffs, after all, had asserted such a claim years ago. So did Epic in its August 2020
`complaint. But when Plaintiffs amended their complaint in September 2020 (the fifth iteration of their
`complaint since filing this action in 2011), they chose not to add a UCL claim. Plaintiffs then watched
`the Epic trial unfold, including the Court’s comments about Epic’s UCL claim at the closing hearing.
`But Plaintiffs still did not seek to add a UCL claim to their case. Instead, Plaintiffs forged ahead with
`their class certification motion, which was based on the operative complaint. Apple responded to that
`motion on its own terms, explaining (with substantial expert support) why Plaintiffs had not carried
`their burden of proving that their Sherman Act claims could be tried to judgment on a classwide basis.
`Only after the principal briefs and expert reports regarding certification had been filed, and Epic re-
`ceived a favorable ruling on its UCL claim, did Plaintiffs mention, for the first time in ten years, the
`possibility of adding a claim for restitution under the UCL.
`Whether analyzed under Rule 15 or Rule 16, a plaintiff must show diligence in amending a
`complaint, and further amendment is prohibited if the plaintiff knew about the factual basis for a claim
`but waited years before adding it to the complaint. There is no exception to this principle that permits
`a plaintiff to await the outcome of a related case before deciding whether to seek leave to amend.
`Plaintiffs’ belated motion for leave to amend should be denied.
`Here, Plaintiffs plainly admit they have been aware of the facts underlying their UCL claim for
`a decade—indeed, they contend their “UCL claim is based on the same allegations as the Sherman Act
`claims” they pleaded in 2011. Mot. 1. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment simply recites the elements of
`a UCL claim and refers back to the identical factual allegations pleaded in support of their Sherman
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`1
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`Act claims. And while the UCL ruling in Epic was limited to the so-called anti-steering provisions of
`the Guidelines, neither Plaintiffs’ complaint (nor the proposed amendment) include any allegations
`about steering or the “tying” theory that underlay Epic’s steering claim. In any event, Plaintiffs never
`point to any reason why they could not have added the UCL claim to their complaint years ago. That
`alone defeats their motion for leave to amend.
`Plaintiffs’ motion fails for numerous other reasons, including because of the prejudice it would
`cause Apple, which would have to re-brief class certification and conduct additional expert discovery
`on, among other things, the basis for any claim of classwide injury resulting from an alleged UCL
`violation and Plaintiffs’ new restitution theory. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would also be futile.
`Plaintiffs never allege why the legal remedy they seek (damages) is inadequate, requiring dismissal of
`their equitable restitution claim under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020).
`For these reasons—and others—leave to amend should be denied.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`II.
`Plaintiffs filed this action on December 29, 2011, alleging three claims under the Sherman Act:
`unlawful monopolization of the purported applications aftermarket; attempted monopolization of the
`applications aftermarket; and conspiracy to monopolize the purported iPhone voice and data services
`aftermarket. Dkt. 1.
`After Apple moved to dismiss, Plaintiffs consolidated their case with Terrell v. Apple, No. 3:12-
`cv-00259, and filed a new Consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 26. The Consolidated Complaint alleged the
`same three causes of action. Apple moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, and the Court
`granted Apple’s motion on April 16, 2012 with leave to amend. Dkt. 40. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
`Complaint on September 28, 2012 (their third complaint in this case), alleging the same three causes
`of action. Dkt. 81. In the CMC statement filed on December 6, 2012, Plaintiffs represented that they
`“do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.” Dkt. 98.
`Apple moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on August 15, 2013, the Court granted
`Apple’s motion with leave to amend. On September 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Com-
`plaint (their fourth in this case), alleging the two Sherman Act claims that are asserted in the operative
`Complaint: unlawful monopolization of the applications aftermarket, and attempted monopolization
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`of the applications aftermarket. Dkt. 111. Apple again moved to dismiss, and on December 2, 2013,
`the Court granted Apple’s motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Dkt. 124.
`Appeals were taken to the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme
`Court issued its decision on May 13, 2019.
`On June 4, 2019, the Developers filed their complaint, which included a UCL claim, in
`Cameron. The Court related Cameron with this case. Dkt. 168.
`On July 31, 2019, Apple filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 166.
`On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs again represented that they “do not anticipate amending the plead-
`ings at this time.” Dkt. 174.
`On October 7, 2019, and January 9, 2020, the Court issued case management orders and di-
`rected Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion by September 30, 2020. Dkt. 198. On June 2,
`2020, pursuant to a request by the parties to extend discovery deadlines in light of the COVID-19
`pandemic, the Court entered a Modified Schedule, which required Plaintiffs to file their class certifi-
`cation motion by February 3, 2021. Dkt. 209. The order also set trial for July 11, 2022.
`Meanwhile, on August 13, 2020, Epic filed its complaint, which included a UCL claim.
`On September 11, 2020, Plaintiffs and Apple filed a stipulation regarding Plaintiffs’ Third
`Amended Complaint. Dkt. 228. Plaintiffs stated that their amendment would expand their “relevant
`market” to include (1) all iOS applications, including those made for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch; and
`(2) all purchases made through Apple’s iOS App Store, including apps purchases and purchases for
`additional app features and subscriptions, and to add allegations concerning Apple’s $x.99 pricing.
`Apple stated that Plaintiffs had not been diligent in adding these claims, and preserved all defenses in
`light of Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence. Dkt. 228.1 The Court entered an order a few days later permitting
`Plaintiffs to file their Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 229.
`On October 12, 2020, Plaintiffs again represented to the Court that they “do not at this time
`
` 1 For example, Apple stated: “Consumer Plaintiffs have not been diligent in pursuing claims for
`purchases made on the iPod touch or iPad, for in-app purchases, or for the App Store’s $x.99 pricing
`because the iPod touch was introduced in September 2007, the iPad was introduced in April 2010, in-
`app purchasing was introduced in June 2009, and the App Store has had $x.99 pricing in the United
`States since it opened in July 2008; thus these products and features of the App Store were all intro-
`duced well before Consumer Plaintiffs Pepper, Schwartz and Hayter filed their lawsuit in December
`2011 and before Consumer Plaintiff Lawrence filed his lawsuit in May 2019, and were also known to
`Consumer Plaintiffs Pepper, Schwartz and Hayter at the time of their prior amendments.” Dkt. 229.
`3
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`anticipate further amending their pleading.” Dkt. 244.
`On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs asked to extend their class certification deadline to April 16,
`2021. Dkt. 282-3. Plaintiffs represented that the extension would not violate the Court’s request to
`have “the ‘full scope’ of Plaintiffs’ class certification requests at the time of Epic’s trial.” Id. at 1.
`Plaintiffs assured the Court that “[u]nder the proposed schedule, the Court will have Plaintiffs’ class
`certification motions and expert reports when Epic’s trial begins.” Id.; see also Dkt. 294. This was in
`response to the Court’s repeated requests for Plaintiffs to brief their legal theories before the Epic trial.
`See, e.g., Dkt 330 (“The Court continues to maintain that understanding plaintiffs’ theories prior to the
`bench trial in Epic Games v. Apple Inc., will allow for a more thoughtful adjudication of the myriad
`matters which are currently pending.”).
`On January 8, 2021, the Court set new class certification deadlines and ordered Plaintiffs to file
`their class certification motion by June 1, 2021 (shortly after the Epic trial was expected to conclude),
`with a hearing on November 16, 2021. Dkt. 362. On February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs again represented
`to the Court that they “do not currently anticipate further amendments to their pleadings.” Dkt. 415.
`On May 3, 2021, trial in Epic began. At trial, the Court referred to the anti-steering provisions
`several times, including on days when Plaintiffs’ counsel was present. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 1325:5–8
`(Brittany DeJong appearance); Trial Tr. 1552:9–12 (the Court asking Epic’s expert whether he “did an
`analysis where Apple maintained its App Store but eliminated the anti-steering provision in their con-
`tract”); Trial Tr. 1832:17–18 (Mark Rifkin appearance); Trial Tr. 1892:25–1893:7 (The Court:
`“[T]here is zero availability to know that you have a different option with the – with the – on the app,
`whereas that did not exist [in Amex] … [W]hat’s so bad about it anyway, to have consumers have
`choice?”); Trial Tr. 4059:21–22 (Betsy Manifold appearance); Trial Tr. 4135:25–4136:6 (The Court:
`“So anti-steering provisions seem[] anticompetitive. I understand that Amex held to the contrary, but
`as I indicated, again, I’ll go back and check the record, in Amex the market reality, I suspect, was not
`the market reality here, which is that people don’t know.”). And at the closing hearing on May 24, the
`Court specifically commented on Epic’s UCL cause of action. See Epic Tr. 4096:15–18 (The Court:
`“There is some California law that suggests that incipient antitrust violations and conduct that violates
`the spirit of the antitrust laws does, in fact, constitute an UCL violation.”).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`4
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`One week later, on June 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion—which only
`sought certification of claims under the Sherman Act. Dkt. 441. The parties engaged in extensive
`expert discovery regarding the class-certification theories in Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ economist,
`Daniel McFadden, submitted a 175-page report on antitrust injury and damages, Dkt. 442-11, and Ap-
`ple deposed Prof. McFadden on August 3, 2021, see Dkt. 475 at 3. On August 10, Apple filed its class
`certification opposition brief supported by expert declarations from four economists, a consumer sur-
`vey expert, and experts in security, intellectual property, and accounting.2 Dkts. 473, 478. Plaintiffs
`deposed five of these experts earlier this month. See Dkt. 556 ¶¶ 7–12.
`On September 10, 2021, the Court issued its Rule 52 Order After Trial in Epic, ruling against
`Epic on all of its federal and state antitrust claims. See Epic Dkt. 812 (“Epic Op.”). Relevant here, the
`Court found that Epic’s alleged relevant market—a single-brand aftermarket for iOS app distribution
`much like the one alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, see TAC ¶¶ 73–77—was “fundamentally flawed”
`and “ignore[d] the market reality that is available to consumers.” Epic Op. at 132. And it found that
`Apple had “valid and non-pretextual business reasons for restricting app distribution” to the App Store,
`id. at 145, rejecting Epic’s antitrust challenge to the very same conduct challenged in Plaintiffs’ com-
`plaint. See TAC ¶¶ 79, 84 (challenging centralized App Store distribution under Section 2). However,
`the Court also concluded that two anti-steering provisions in Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines are
`“unfair” within the meaning of the UCL, and enjoined enforcement of those provisions. Epic Op. at
`164, 167–68.
`On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs notified Apple that they intended to file a motion for leave
`to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (which would be their sixth complaint in this case), and on October
`8, Plaintiffs filed their motion. Plaintiffs’ proposed Fourth Amended Complaint does not include any
`allegations regarding any anti-steering provisions, nor does it allege that Plaintiffs lack an adequate
`remedy at law.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`“[W]hen a party seeks to amend a pleading after the pretrial scheduling order’s deadline for
`amending the pleadings has expired, the moving party must satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of Federal
`
` 2 One of Apple’s economic experts has since had to withdraw for personal reasons; three of Apple’s
`other experts adopted certain of his opinions. See Dkt. 534.
`5
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).” Pasha v. Viscosi, No. 2:19-cv-05672, 2020 WL 586821, at *1 (C.D.
`Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) (quoting In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th
`Cir. 2013)). Under Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
`consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). That is because “[a] scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of
`paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Quezada v. City of
`Los Angeles, 2018 WL 4378661, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recs.,
`Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610–11 (9th Cir. 1992)).
`“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
`amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If the party seeking amendment “was not diligent, the inquiry
`should end.” Id. “Good cause may be found where the moving party shows it assisted the court with
`creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines
`due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, and that it was diligent
`in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order.”
`Campos v. Cty. Of Riverside, 2016 WL 9173450, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) (quoting Jackson v.
`Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). “The Court also considers the existence and
`degree of prejudice to the non-moving parties in determining whether there is good cause to permit
`modification.” In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Secs. Litig., 2018 WL 1517130, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26,
`2018) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
`“Only where Rule 16’s good cause standard is met must a court consider whether amendment
`is prop

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket