Marc Opperman, et al. v. Path Inc., et al.
Published: Jun. 7, 2014 | Result Date: May 14, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 3:12-cv-01529-JST Bench Decision – Dismissal in Part
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Ivo M. Labar
(Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP)
Jonathan B. Gaskin
(Kaufhold Gaskin LLP)
Cari Ann Cohorn
(Cohorn Law)
Nicholas A. Carlin
(Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP)
David M. Given
(Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP)
Suzanne L. Havens-Beckman
(Parisi & Havens LLP)
Michael J. Von Loewenfeldt
(Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP)
Defendant
Maren J. Clouse
(Office of the San Jose City Attorney)
Shelley G. Hurwitz
(Holland & Knight LLP)
Christopher G. Kelly
(Holland & Knight LLP)
Jennifer Sarnelli
(Gardy & Notis LLP)
Joshua Aaron Jessen
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
Mazda K. Antia
(Cooley LLP)
Michael J. Biles
(King & Spalding LLP)
Emilio B. Nicolas
(Jackson Walker LLP)
David F. McDowell Jr.
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Jedediah Wakefield
(Fenwick & West LLP)
Jacob A. Sommer
(Zwillgen Law LLP)
Harmeet K. Dhillon
(Dhillon Law Group Inc.)
Julie E. Schwartz
(Perkins Coie )
Tyler G. Newby
(Fenwick & West LLP)
Christine Lepera
(Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP)
Michele D. Floyd
(Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP)
Michael H. Page
(Durie Tangri LLP)
Michael G. Rhodes
(Cooley LLP)
Valentine A. Shalamitski
(Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP)
I. Neel Chatterjee
(Goodwin Procter LLP)
Facts
Marc Opperman filed a class action against Path Inc. and others, on behalf of all purchasers of Apple iDevices.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Apple launched the App Store in 2008, a service that allows users of iDevices to purchase and download apps. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants all developed apps which allowed them to copy an iDevice users' contact information without his or her consent. Plaintiffs claimed that Path, in particular, uploaded that information to its servers without the users' knowledge.
Plaintiffs asserted numerous claims for violation of various privacy laws, in addition to claims for negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, conversion, and trespass to personal property. Plaintiffs also claimed misappropriation, strict product liability, negligence, and secondary liability.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims and that they had failed to adequately support those claims.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with the exception of one of plaintiffs' claims for common law instruction upon seclusion.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390