In Re Apple & AT & TM Antitrust Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AT & TM’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS; DENYING DEFENDANT AT & TM’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
JAMES WARE, District Judge.
J. INTRODUCTION
In the cellular telephone market, it has become a common practice for an equipment manufacturer and a voice and data supply company to join together to introduce a new cellular telephone to the market. Often, to obtain a particular model of telephone at a given price from a given manufacturer, purchasers must sign a contract with the joined service…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
- United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Webb v. Carter's Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2011
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.