Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CORONAVIRUS REPORTER Case No. 24-cv-08660-EMC CORPORATION, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 9 MOTION TO DISMISS v. 10 APPLE INC, Docket No. 62 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiffs challenge Defendant Apple Inc.’s alleged monopolization of the app distribution 16 market for its devices. Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First 17 Amended Complaint (“FAC 2”). Dkt. 62. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata. See 18 Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5936910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021); Coronavirus 19 Reporter v. Apple Inc., 85 F.4th 948 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2526 (2024). 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against 21 Apple and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ request to convert Apple’s motion to a summary 22 judgment motion. See Dkt. 67. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 On November 30, 2021, this Court dismissed claims brought by plaintiffs Coronavirus 25 Reporter, Calid Inc., Dr. Jeffrey D. Isaacs, and Primary Productions LLC against Apple Inc. 26 Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5936910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) (case is 27 hereafter “Coronavirus I”). There, the plaintiffs challenged Apple’s alleged “monopolist 1 (internal citation omitted) (“Plaintiffs bring this action for antitrust and RICO violations, and 2 breach of contract and fraud against Apple, Inc…”). This Court held that the plaintiffs’ antitrust 3 claims failed because the plaintiffs had failed to define a relevant market or allege an antitrust 4 injury. Id. at *6. This Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice because “between 5 the various iterations of this case being filed across jurisdictions and by different configurations of 6 Plaintiffs – all challenging the same conduct by Apple and all by the same counsel – this is 7 Plaintiff’s seventh amended complaint on these claims” and the plaintiffs had still failed to state 8 any claims. Id. at *18 (emphasis in original). 9 On November 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decision. Coronavirus Rep. 10 v. Apple, Inc., 85 F.4th 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2526, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1204 11 (2024) (holding that “the district court properly dismissed with prejudice all of the claims against 12 Apple”). The Ninth Circuit held that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding 13 that further amendment was not warranted” because “Plaintiffs-Appellants were given a total of 14 seven opportunities to amend similar complaints across jurisdictions and between various 15 permutations of plaintiffs, but still failed to state their claims here adequately.” Id. 16 On March 3, 2024, in the District of Wyoming, the instant Plaintiffs Coronavirus Reporter 17 Corporation, Calid Inc., and Greenflight Venture Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against 18 Defendant Apple Inc. Dkt. 1. 19 On July 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC 2”). Plaintiffs 20 allege that Apple monopolizes the app distribution market on its devices through its curation and 21 app approval process for its App Store and suppresses or excludes apps that compete with Apple 22 or its partners. Dkt. 30. Plaintiffs assert nine claims based on this alleged conduct. 23 On November 21, 2024, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. 24 Dkt. 44. 25 On January 9, 2025, this Court related this case to Coronavirus I. Dkt. 53. 26 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 62. 27 III. LEGAL STANDARD 1 a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” 2 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n.5 (1979). The bar extends beyond issues that 3 were actually litigated, encompassing all claims based on the same cause of action that were 4 brought or could have been brought. United States v. Liquidators of Eur. Fed. Credit Bank, 630 5 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2011). The three elements for claim preclusion are: “(1) an identity of 6 claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.” Howard v. City of 7 Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017). 8 IV. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata or claim preclusion. 10 A. Identical Issues 11 The first element is met. When considering whether claims are identical for claim 12 preclusion purposes, the Ninth Circuit considers: “(1) [W]hether rights or interests established in 13 the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) 14 whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits 15 involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same 16 transactional nucleus of facts. The last of these criteria is the most important.” Headwaters Inc. v. 17 U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 18 681 F.2d 1199, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 1982)). 19 Coronavirus I and the instant suit arise out of the same nucleus of facts. In both cases, 20 Plaintiffs allege that Apple monopolizes the app distribution market on its devices through its 21 curation and app approval process for its App Store. See Coronavirus I FAC (hereafter “FAC 1) 22 (Dkt. 42) ¶ 2 and FAC (hereafter “FAC 2”) (Dkt. 30) ¶¶ 2, 5, and 7 (both introducing the lawsuit 23 as a challenge to Apple’s monopolistic App Store curation and app censorship). In both cases, 24 Plaintiffs allege that Apple suppresses or excludes apps that compete with Apple or its partners. 25 See FAC 1 ¶ 27-30 and FAC 2 ¶ 343-44. In fact, Plaintiffs concede that they lifted allegations, 26 claims, and injuries from Coronavirus I. See Thompson v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & 27 Weiss, No. 19-56460, 2021 WL 5002414, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2021) (finding claims precluded 1 the injury [Plaintiff] seeks to redress remains the same, as does the nucleus of facts essential to 2 each claim presented [here]”). 3 Any subsequent litigation surrounding Plaintiffs’ claims would arise from the same 4 transactional nucleus of facts and implicate substantially the same apps and evidence. Having lost 5 on the merits of their claims in this Court, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and for which the 6 Supreme Court denied certiorari, Plaintiffs would be precluded from bringing these claims against 7 Apple. See Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5936910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021); 8 Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 85 F.4th 948 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2526 9 (2024). 10 B. Final Judgment on the Merits 11 The second element is also met. A federal judgment typically becomes final for claim 12 preclusion purposes “when the district court disassociates itself from the case, leaving nothing to 13 be done at the court of first instance save execution of the judgment.” Clay v. United States, 537 14 U.S. 522, 527 (2003). 15 This Court’s dismissal of the claims in Coronavirus I “as a matter of law” and with 16 prejudice is a merits determination on the Plaintiffs’ instant grievances that is sufficiently firm and 17 “not tentative, provisional, or contingent” for purposes of claim preclusion. United States v. 18 Arpaio, 951 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[A] judgment will ordinarily be considered final in 19 respect to a claim ... if it is not tentative, provisional, or contingent and represents the completion 20 of all steps in the adjudication of the claim by the court.”); see Clay, 537 U.S. at 527. The 21 judgement of this Court was appealed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. There were no 22 further proceedings. 23 The Court’s dismissal disposing of the entire complaint with prejudice, affirmed on appeal, 24 constituted a final judgment for purposes of claim preclusion. “Federal law dictates that a 25 dismissal with prejudice bars a later suit under res judicata.” Beard v. Sheet Metal Workers 26 Union, Loc. 150, 908 F.2d 474, 477 (9th Cir. 1990); see Coronavirus, 2021 WL 593691 at *6 27 (“[T]he Court dismisses all of the antitrust claims for Plaintiffs’ failure to” “allege a plausible 1 85 F.4th at 959 (“We affirm the decisions of the district court to dismiss Plaintiffs-Appellants’ 2 FAC for failure to state any claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to deny 3 || Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions for reconsideration and for preliminary injunction.”). 4 || C. Privity of Parties 5 The third and final element is met. First, Plaintiff Calid Inc. and Defendant Apple “are 6 identical in both actions.” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 7 || 2005). Second, Plaintiff Coronavirus Reporter Corporation, a Wyoming C corporation according 8 to the complaint, was also a party in Coronavirus I. See Dkt. 30 at 47. That the entity includes 9 || “Corporation” in its name in this suit does not render it a new party, particularly where the State of 10 || Wyoming has a record of only one entity including “Coronavirus Reporter” in its name. See Mot. 11 Exs. 1-5. Finally, the last remaining Plaintiff Greenflight Venture Corporation is in privity with 12 || the plaintiff in the prior case. “Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if ‘there 5 13 is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.’” 14 || Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 3 15 2003) (citing In re Gottheiner, 703 F.2d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Greenflight Venture a 16 || Corporation” is “Mr. [Jeffrey D.] Isaacs’ solely owned entity.” Greenflight Venture Corp. v. 3 17 Google LLC, 765 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1273 (S.D. Fla. 2025); see Mot. Ex. 6 (Florida Secretary of 18 State Corporate Record listing Dr. Jeffrey D. Isaacs as the Chief Executive Officer of Greenflight 19 Venture Corporation). Thus, privity is satisfied. 20 V. CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: June 25, 2025 25 26 ED D M. CHEN 27 United States District Judge 28