21
22
23
24
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28
13
14
15
16
9
10
11
12
7
8
5
6
3
4
1
2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
INGRID VAN ZANT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 1-10-CV-177571 v.
Plaintiff,
APPLE INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STAY
AND GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Judge: Honorable James P. Kleinberg
Dept.: 1
Date: May 13, 2011
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Complaint Filed: July 21, 2010
Trial Date: None
set sf-2994359
O RDER G RANTING A PPLE I NC
.’
S M OTION TO S TAY AND G RANTING R EQUEST FOR J UDICIAL N OTICE
C ASE N O . 1-10-CV-177571

21
22
23
24
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28
13
14
15
16
9
10
11
12
7
8
5
6
3
4
1
2
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”) demurs to and moves to dismiss the Class Action
Complaint filed by plaintiff Ingrid Van Zant (“Plaintiff”). In the alternative, Defendant moves to stay the instant action pending resolution of federal multi-district litigation in In re Apple iPhone 3G
Liability Litigation (the “MDL action”).
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Master Administrative Consolidated Amended
Complaint filed on October 21, 2009 in the MDL action (Exh. A to Decl. Penelope Preovolos), the
Master Administrative Consolidated Third Amended Complaint (“Master TAC”) filed in the MDL action (Exh. 1 to Suppl. Decl. Penelope Preovolos), and the December 9, 2010 order by Judge Ware granting the MDL plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the Master TAC (Exh. 3 to Suppl. Decl.
Preovolos) is GRANTED under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). The request for judicial notice is also GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Exh. 2 to Suppl. Decl. Preovolos) under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). The request for judicial notice of comparison charts attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Preovolos and Exhibit
4 to the Supplemental Declaration of Preovolos is DENIED. and to promote judicial efficiency. (
1489.)
MOTION TO STAY
Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice
Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484,
Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 provides, in pertinent part:
When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).)
“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” ( Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co . (1967) 66
Cal.2d 738, 746].) sf-2994359 1
O RDER G RANTING A PPLE I NC
.’
S M OTION TO S TAY AND G RANTING R EQUEST FOR J UDICIAL N OTICE
C ASE N O . 1-10-CV-177571

21
22
23
24
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28
13
14
15
16
9
10
11
12
7
8
5
6
3
4
1
2
[W]hen a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action.
[Citations.]
‘In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.’ [Citation.] The California Supreme Court also has isolated another critical factor favoring a stay of the state court action in favor of the federal action… – the federal action is pending in California not some other state. [Citation.]
(Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 804 [Caiafa].)
Two Caiafa factors weigh against a stay. First, the court finds no basis to infer that the instant suit was brought solely to harass Defendant. Second, the court does not feel that the rights of the parties are best determined by the federal court in the MDL action. It appears from judicially-noticed matters that the MDL action has not progressed past the pleadings stage, and generally speaking, this court is better suited to consider the viability and merits of state law claims.
However, two Caiafa factors strongly weigh in favor of a stay. First, a stay in this matter would avoid unseemly conflicts with the federal court in the MDL action. Plaintiff argues there is no threat of conflict because the cases are not similar. According to the Plaintiff, the MDL action rests on a theory that both Apple and AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”) bear responsibility for the fact that
ATTM’s 3G network was not sufficiently developed to handle the network traffic demands of the iPhone 3G, whereas the instant case asserts liability only against Apple for its own defective product design that precluded the iPhone 3G from living up to its advertised hype. However, the instant
Complaint alleges the same problems with network capabilities and connectivity as in the MDL action,
1
and the federal MDL complaints allege defects in the iPhone 3G’s hardware and/or
1
See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 41 [“The iPhone 3G suffers from poor connectivity to the 3G network”];
¶ 45 [The iPhone 3G is designed to search for an available 3G network connection…”]. sf-2994359 2
O RDER G RANTING A PPLE I NC
.’
S M OTION TO S TAY AND G RANTING R EQUEST FOR J UDICIAL N OTICE
C ASE N O . 1-10-CV-177571

21
22
23
24
17
18
19
20
25
26
27
28
13
14
15
16
9
10
11
12
7
8
5
6
3
4
1
2 software.
2 Notably, the federal court in the MDL action held that the issues of connectivity and network speed are inextricably intertwined with the issue of whether the iPhone 3G was knowingly defective and inadequate to perform “twice as fast” as advertised. (See In re Apple iPhone 3G Prods.
Liab. Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2010) 728 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1076.) Moreover, as Defendant points out, the issue of whether ATTM is an indispensable party is presented in both actions, and the federal court has already ruled against Plaintiff on this issue. ( Ibid .) Given these substantial similarities in allegations and issues between the two actions, there is a real potential for conflicts with the MDL action. Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly in favor of staying the instant matter.
Finally, the last Caiafa factor is whether the federal action is pending in California, and not some other state. Here, the MDL action is not only in California, but it is in the San Jose division of the U.S. District Court. This favors a stay of this case.
After weighing the competing factors, the court exercises its discretion to stay this action pending resolution of the first-filed MDL action. The two actions involve substantially the same subject matter and substantially the same parties, and a stay will avoid potential conflicts with the
MDL action and duplicative litigation.
The motion in the alternative to stay the instant action is GRANTED.
DEMURRER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant’s demurrer and motion to dismiss will be CONTINUED until a future date to be determined once the stay is lifted. Defendant shall file a report on or before September 12, 2011 regarding the status of the MDL action. A further case management conference shall be held on
September 16, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ___________________
THE HON. JAMES P. KLEINBERG
2 See, e.g., Master TAC ¶ 69 [“The Wired article went on to confirm that the design of the iPhone 3G itself was the root of the defect at issue in this action…”]; ¶ 78 [“…the defects at issue herein are attributable to the hardware or firmware within the iPhone 3G”]; ¶ 98 [“Apple … either knew, should have known, or [was] obligated to understand that … the iPhone 3G itself suffered from defective hardware and/or software.”].
sf-2994359 3
O RDER G RANTING A PPLE I NC
.’
S M OTION TO S TAY AND G RANTING R EQUEST FOR J UDICIAL N OTICE
C ASE N O . 1-10-CV-177571