Apple 2009 Annual Report Download - page 29

Table of Contents
dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That
complaint alleges California law-
based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions
Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-
class.
On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-
based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14,
2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’
s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. On January 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which seeks restitution, injunctive relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’
fees. On February 15, 2008, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’
s motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A hearing on plaintiffs’ appeal took place on October 8, 2009.
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. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint
to add a minor plaintiff and claims regarding alleged risks of hearing loss to young people. The hearing on the motion to amend took place on
April 24, 2009, and the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion with leave to resubmit it.
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 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 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. On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company’
s motion to
transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. 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
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, 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. On November 30, 2007, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied. Plaintiffs filed
a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19, 2008 and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1, 2008. The Company filed an answer to
the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 18, 2008. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an order dismissing
plaintiffs’
fraud claim based upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on July 14, 2008 and a Seventh Amended Complaint on August 22, 2008, adding three new reseller plaintiffs.
On August 22, 2008, plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify the consumer class. On September 22, 2008, the Company filed its answer to the
consumer-related claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses, and also filed a
26