|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
This excerpt taken from the AAPL 10-Q filed May 5, 2006. Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc.
(filed on February 9, 2006, San Mateo County Superior Court; First Amended
Complaint filed March 16, 2006)
These federal and state court complaints allege that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of purported nationwide classes of iPod nano purchasers, with the exception of California purchasers, and allege violations of the consumer protection, express and implied warranty statutes of each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the common laws of these jurisdictions. The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported California class of iPod nano purchasers and asserts claims for alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Jennings action was brought on behalf of a purported class of all iPod nano purchasers outside of the United States,
41
based upon alleged violations of the same California statutes as in the Calado complaint. The Kahan action was brought on behalf of a purported New York class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims under the New York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The Rappel complaint is filed on behalf of a purported New Jersey class of purchasers and alleges claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Acts and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The Mayo and Williamson complaints were both brought on behalf of a Louisiana class of purchasers, and allege breach of warranties, unjust enrichment and violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. The Valencia complaint was brought on behalf of a worldwide class of purchasers and alleges breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, violations of California’s Business & Professions Code §17200 and §17500 and the CLRA, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages and various other remedies. The Sioson complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of California purchasers. The complaint alleges breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code § 17500 (false advertising), the CLRA; it purports to seek relief based upon alleged scratching and screen cracking. The Company filed a motion for transfer and consolidation before Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) to have all of the federal cases transferred to the Northern District of California and consolidated for pre-trial purposes. In an order dated April 17, 2006, the MDL Panel granted the Company’s motion and transferred the federal cases to the Northern District of California before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte. The federal cases are all stayed pending further order by Judge Whyte following the MDL Panel’s order, and accordingly the responses to the federal complaints are not yet due. The Company’s response to the Calado complaint is not yet due. The case is stayed pending a ruling on the petition for coordination with the Sioson action. The Court has recommended coordination of these two cases in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Two similar complaints, |
| |||||||
