Apple 2006 Annual Report Download - page 37

Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and
adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006. Plaintiffs
will not oppose the motion but instead will file a second amended complaint by January 15, 2007.
A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1,
2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. A hearing on the motion for class certification is
scheduled for February 8 and 9, 2007, although Plaintiff counsel has now requested that the hearing be delayed pending a ruling on the motion
to dismiss in the U.S. case.
Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005. The initial complaint
alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new
and failing to honor warranties. Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation
of the Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the
Company’s motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 2, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business &
Professions Code §16700 et seq.) and a claim for false advertising. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the Court
sustained in its entirety on November 10, 2005. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on
December 29, 2005. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous
complaints, such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer
plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple retail stores. Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair
competition (§17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and
alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company filed a
demurrer to the amended complaint on January 31, 2006, which the Court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen of seventeen causes of action.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff. The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on September 9,
2006. Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006. On October 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The case is in discovery.
Butzer, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.;Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed the Butzer action on August 23, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the Company’s PowerBook G4 portable computers. The complaint
alleged defects in the memory of the computers. The complaint alleged that this purported defect extends to other series of the Company’s
portables and stated that plaintiffs reserved the right to amend the complaint to include these other series. Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged
violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The complaint sought remedies
including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief. The Wirges action was filed on January 20, 2006 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, also on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made similar allegations. Plaintiffs asserted claims for
breach of warranties, violation of the Magnuson—Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought restitution,
damages and other remedies. The Blackwell action was filed on February 10, 2006 in the
36