There's a difference between fielding many potential issues and stretching a field of law to cover that which it is not designed to. You do not want to push your luck in front of a judge, especially when the result is the appearance of incompetence.
Yes, and I agree, taken by themselves, some of the points have little or no merit. But when taken as a whole, the points support each other pointing to an overall supporting of the claim.
I take it you don't live here. California courts are highly deferential to established process, and the California Supreme Court is one of the most conservative in its discretionary power. California courts are bound to follow directives from the bench and will almost never stray from precedent.
Come on matticus, you can't really expect me to believe a WORD of this, can you? No, I do NOT live in CA, but I can see what is going on there. From Wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but for my purposes, it is one stop quote shopping):
The Ninth Circuit is politically liberal (and out of step with Supreme Court precedent.)
Indeed, while the Ninth Circuit had long been instrumental in striking new legal ground, particularly in the areas of immigration law and prisoner rights, it was the Newdow decision that galvanized criticism against what conservatives saw as “judicial activism.”
Hardly conservative. I would go so far as to say it is generally accepted that the 9th circuit is the most liberal of all circuit courts in the US. While in the above quotes, the courts are noted to be liberal in terms of "immigration law and prisoner rights", it seems that consumer right also seem to be held in high regard by the courts, at least in some cases.
Don't confuse the state's liberalism with a willingness to overturn settled law--to do so would be an egregious error. The courts are often generous in application and finding minimum standards to be met, but they are not prone to create wholly new standards at will.
Who said anything about overturning settled law? We are talking here about settling points that are ambiguous or not covered by settled law at all. You previously asked what I find most interesting, and this is my answer: is it in the consumers best interest to allow locked down phones. While I would agree that carriers should be allowed to lock SIMs to a network for a subsidized phone for the period of the contract, that is not the case with an iPhone. This is a debatable and very valid point, and one worthy of a judgment. If a consumer has paid for a phone IN FULL, and completed the terms of their ATT contract and Apple and ATT do NOT furnish (or allow a path to) unlock, I think there is a problem, and I do not think this is in the interest of the consumer. Those who bought the phone and have either canceled their contract within the first 30 days, or canceled after and paid the ETF have completed their obligations to Apple and ATT in total, and are in an unlock limbo. I think it will be very interesting to see what the court says in regard to these people.
Not from a California court in a case of no state interest, no health or safety issue, and no deprivation of liberty and never from anything short of a Supreme Court decision.
Again, it looks as if you have not spent any time reading the actual complaint. There are specific complaints that are alleged to violate California law, as well as federal law. And California has an interest in protecting the rights of their consumers.
Added: Specifically, it is alleged ATT/Apple violate CA Business & Professional Codes 17200 (protect competitors and consumers from illegal, fraudulent, and "unfair" business practice) and 16720 (Anti-Trust), as well as the Cartwright Act. Thus, California has an interest in this action.
On the contrary, it is an attorney's duty to submit any arguments which support your client's cause. Failure to do so not only opens you to suits for malpractice, but also diminishes your chances of victory.
Agreed. Further, as I said above, taken individually, some points of the complaint seem unsupportable. But taken as a group, they show intent.
