'iPod iTunes' anti-trust lawsuit loses last standing plaintiff [update: motion to dismiss denied]

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
During court proceedings in iTunes lawsuit on Monday, new evidence presented by Apple revealed the case's sole remaining plaintiff may not have purchased iPods eligible for action, and the person was subsequently disqualified.


Screenshot showing Marianna Rosen's iPod collection.


Elaborating on earlier findings regarding plaintiff Marianna Rosen, Apple notified presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers that device purchases were made using a credit card assigned to the Rosen Law Firm.

Judge Gonzales Rogers was set to rule on a prior Apple motion to dismiss, but held off in light of the new findings. The remaining plaintiff was removed from the case Monday evening, though lawyers representing the class action say they will have no problem finding a replacement.

Still, lawyers representing Apple are not aggressively seeking dismissal.

"We want to win this case on the merit, and we think we're going to," said Apple attorney William Isaacson. "So we have not pushed to have this decided."

Last week, lawyers withdrew plaintiff Melanie Tucker after it was discovered that her iPod purchases also did not fall within the eligible time span set between Sept. 12, 2006 to March 31, 2009. Proceedings left off with Rosen's purchases still in question, though Apple had noted the iPod touch she claimed to have purchased in 2008 was actually from September 2009.

In previous testimony, Rosen claimed she bought an iPod nano in 2007 and an iPod touch in 2008, but failed to keep necessary receipts proving purchase dates. Instead, she offered up the iPod touch for inspection in court. Using the device serial number, Apple lawyers were able to trace the purchase back to July 2009, The Times reports.

Following Apple's discovery, attorney for the plaintiffs Bonny Sweeney presented paper receipts for iPods purchased in September 2008, within the case's prescribed time period. Again, Apple cross-checked with their own records and found the iPods were bought by the Rosen Law Firm, a business owned by Rosen's husband.

To claim injury, plaintiffs need to prove they purchased iPods directly, not through a family business.

In a filing over the weekend, Rosen amended her claims, saying she bought both an iPod touch and an iPod nano on Sept. 11, 2008 with a credit card issued to the Rosen Law Firm, which was authorized for personal use. This second iPod touch is a separate device from the one produce by Rosen in court and subsequently found to be out of scope. Rosen no longer holds the credit card, but claims it was issued under both her name and the firm's, where she worked from 2004 to 2012.

Sweeney maintains Rosen's standing in the case, adding that even if she was found to be ineligible, the next move would be to find another plaintiff, not dismiss the case.

In its case against Apple, the class is seeking $350 million in damages on allegations that Apple's use of FairPlay digital rights management created a monopoly with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. Under U.S. antitrust laws, damages could be tripled to over $1 billion if Apple is found culpable of wrongdoing.

Update: Judge Gonzales Rogers has denied Apple's motion to dismiss the suit citing a responsibility to the 8 million iPod owners potentially affected by Apple's alleged monopoly. The jurist will hold a session on Tuesday regarding new plaintiff selection. Sweeney said she has numerous iPod owners "ready and willing" to fill in for former lead plaintiffs.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    red oakred oak Posts: 886member
    Lawyer clowns
  • Reply 2 of 48

    As well it should. Why this ever got this far is beyond me.

  • Reply 3 of 48
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member
    While I'm 100% confident that some money hungry slob will jump in to fill their places. It's farcical that the representation for the plaintiffs have not found eligible customers.
  • Reply 4 of 48
    ecats wrote: »
    While I'm 100% confident that some money hungry slob will jump in to fill their places. It's farcical that the representation for the plaintiffs have not found eligible customers.

    That's why Apple wants it decided on merit and not a technicality. Prevents future suits.
  • Reply 5 of 48
    This whole thing was initiated by the lawyers. Time for them to think of something new to sue Apple for.
  • Reply 6 of 48
     

     Update: Judge Gonzales Rogers has denied Apple's motion to dismiss the suit citing a responsibility to the 8 million iPod owners potentially affected by Apple's alleged monopoly.


     

    Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.

  • Reply 7 of 48
    "We want to win this case on the merit, and we think we're going to," said Apple attorney William Isaacson. "So we have not pushed to have this decided."

    I've never been so impressed with an attorney in my life.
  • Reply 8 of 48
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,741member
    Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.

    Perfectly reasonable for the judge to hold off until the action can organise itself. The validity of the case can't be held accountable to a couple of inaccuracies. If the action can't organise itself in a reasonable time then it can be dismissed.
  • Reply 9 of 48
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,166member
    Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.

    This actually in Apple's favor. If this was dismissed then they will re-file and it will cost Apple more time and money. The case as it stands now is weak and will be done in a week.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    Seriously, you've been even more unhinged than usual recently.

  • Reply 11 of 48
    nasserae wrote: »
    Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.

    This actually in Apple's favor. If this was dismissed then they will re-file and it will cost Apple more time and money. The case as it stands now is weak and will be done in a week.

    While that's certainly probable, it is also possible that some new twist/turn could emerge.

    It's often a good strategy for a company, even one with deep pockets like Apple, to avoid litigation when it can. Think about the eBooks case and Cote/Bromwich, for example.
  • Reply 13 of 48
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



    Okay. Disbar the judge now. No one this stupid should be in charge of legal proceedings.


    Oh grow up you twit. Perfectly reasonable for the judge to hold off until the action can organise itself. The validity of the case can't be held accountable to a couple of inaccuracies. If the action can't organise itself in a reasonable time then it can be dismissed.



    Seriously, you've been even more unhinged than usual recently. Calm the frick down.

     

    The whole reason for the named plaintiffs is to be representative for the class isn't it? So far the class has not been represented by someone that falls within the class which seems to be a problem after a damn decade of legal proceedings. To me the decade to date was run by attorneys who were not representing the class and tainted the whole process. 

     

    Also, it seems really wrong that in hind sight the class status was granted by on a suite brought by people not members of said class. This seems like something Apple could appeal any negative outcome on. I mean how can you loose a case that was not able to be brought by the people who did? The judge can argue that there are some 8 Million people out there that could step up, but we cannot look now and say that they would have. They may well not have ever filed suit for this nonsense.

     

    Of the lawyers, for the lawyers, and by the lawyers. This is what we are seeing in class action suites.

  • Reply 14 of 48
    mubailimubaili Posts: 442member
    If this law suit can proceed, what prevent user from suing Apple for rejecting applications on App Store by claiming Apple is a monopoly on iOS? This is ridiculous. As long as Apple supports MP3 I don't see issue at all. This is so wrong with the legal system here.
  • Reply 15 of 48
    It seems that Apple cannot get away from people trying to steal from it and the U.S. judicial is corroborating with the would-be thieves!

    I actually have an iPod touch that falls within the correct timeframe and I am not interested in suing Apple nor collecting any money if Apple loses.

    I was absolutely against Real Networks' repeated attempts to usurp FairPlay to get its music on Apple's iPods. Real could not compete with Apple's iTunes and iPod businesses so it decided it would purposely break Apple's security and call it competition.

    Real Networks became a joke. I was a Real customer. The ads and bloat became too much for me deal with so I moved on.

    I hope this trial ends in Apple's favor. I have a weird vibe that this trial could end just as the eBooks trial ended.
  • Reply 16 of 48
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    ...  the case's sole remaining plaintiff may not have purchased iPods eligible for action.

     

    So is it now a class inaction suit?

    /s

  • Reply 17 of 48
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Somebody should sue those lawyers for conspiracy to commit fraud!

     

    They don't even have any plaintiffs! They're just trying to scam Apple out of money!

     

    Those lawyers are scum. A pimp is far more respectable than they will ever be.

  • Reply 18 of 48
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    crowley wrote: »
    Oh grow up you twit. Perfectly reasonable for the judge to hold off until the action can organise itself. The validity of the case can't be held accountable to a couple of inaccuracies. If the action can't organise itself in a reasonable time then it can be dismissed.

    Seriously, you've been even more unhinged than usual recently. Calm the frick down.

    The judge cited the other 8 million complainants. Do you really think it is "reasonable time" to go through 8 million people until they find the perfect witness or plaintiff?
  • Reply 19 of 48
    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

    The judge cited the other 8 million complainants.

     

    If he can give us the names of, say, three of them, I’ll be okay. They don’t exist, though.

  • Reply 20 of 48
    apple ][ wrote: »
    Somebody should sue those lawyers for conspiracy to commit fraud!

    They don't even have any plaintiffs! They're just trying to scam Apple out of money!

    And they spent the last 8 years working on this "case"

    It's gonna suck when they have NOTHING to show for it...
Sign In or Register to comment.