Law Office of Damian R. Fernandez

Call us at 408-355-3021 or send us an email for a free consultation.

 

Federal Court Postpones iPhone™ Class Action Lawsuit Pending Review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Damian R. Fernandez is co-counsel on the class-action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T Mobility. He represents 6 of the 9 class representatives. He has a private practice in civil litigation in the Silicon Valley. He represents individuals and businesses in the areas of business law, real estate, breach of contract, interference with contract, unfair business practices, employment law and fraud.

San Jose, California. September 16, 2010. At 4:49 PM today, a California federal trial court granted Apple and AT&T Mobility’s (“ATTM”) motion to stay the anti-trust iPhone™ class action lawsuit pending appellate review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple is challenging the ruling that gave the lawsuit class action status. Today’s decision postpones the lawsuit until the Ninth Circuit rules on Apple’s Petition for Permission to Appeal the Class Certification Order which was filed on July 23, 2010. Apple had to ask for permission from the higher court because it does not have the right to appeal the trial court’s decision that certified the class until the case is completed.

In today’s 7 page written decision, Judge Ware said, “the practical effect of granting this Motion is to stay the dissemination of Class Notice to millions of consumers for a short time until the Ninth Circuit rules on whether or not to take Defendants’ appeal.” And that the stay “serves the public interest to avoid the risk of significantly confusing the class consumers.”

In order to prevail on their motion for stay, Apple had to show that: (1) serious legal questions are raised in the appeal; and (2) that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. The Court found that Apple met its burden, stating “neither Plaintiffs nor the class will be significantly harmed by a short delay. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to show that the equities tip sharply in their favor.”

The rationale for the Court’s decision is that “[su]ch a stay will delay the expenditure of the significant costs associated with the dissemination of Notice. Most importantly, a stay will avoid the possibility of the Class receiving two conflicting Notices. A stay therefore also serves the public interest to avoid the risk of significantly confusing the class consumers.”

The case is stayed for 60 days until November 15, 2010. On that date, the parties will appear for a Further Case Management Conference.

Call us at 408-355-3021 or send us an email for a free consultation.