Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
64,104
31,775



ipod_classic_roundup-250x248.jpg
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over Apple's iPod/iTunes lawsuit that began last week, has disqualified the last plaintiff in the case and judged that the trial will continue while lawyers scramble to find a replacement, reports Associated Press.

That last plaintiff, Marianna Rosen, was disqualified by Judge Rogers after Apple successfully proved that the devices Rosen bought were either not from the timeframe covered by the lawsuit or were purchased using a credit card issued to her husband's business.

With all plaintiffs now removed from the case, Apple has attempted to have the case dismissed, claiming it is too late to name a new plaintiff. The original plaintiff's attorneys were given a deadline of today to name a new lead plaintiff, but The Wall Street Journal's Jeff Elder reports the judge is conferring with attorneys for both sides this morning to discuss a possible two-day delay in the trial while the situation is addressed.

According to the AP's account of the proceedings that saw the case lose its last plaintiff, Judge Rogers "scolded" Rosen and her attorneys and called Rosen's purchases "inadequate," showing impatience at having spent a week sifting through irrelevant testimony.
"I am troubled," the judge said, citing Rosen's failure to adequately account for her iPod purchases and "the failure of plaintiffs' counsel themselves to investigate sufficiently." But the judge said she has an obligation to the "millions of absent class members" to let the case continue if another lead plaintiff can be identified.
Two other plaintiffs withdrew from the case when their purchased iPods also inadequately aligned with the devices included in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs' attorney Bonny Sweeney claims many more possible plaintiffs are lining up after reading about the story making headlines last week, telling Judge Rogers that "there are plaintiffs who stand willing and ready to step in and we will have them in court tomorrow." Apple's lawyers will be given the names of the possible volunteers and judge whether or not they are eligible.

The case has been making waves since it began last week, with several Apple executives voicing their positions on the issue, a video deposition of the late Steve Jobs being shown in court last Friday, and today's news that major media outlets are seeking to broadcast Jobs' deposition to the public.

Article Link: iPod Lawsuit Loses Last Plaintiff as Judge Discusses Halt Amid Search for Replacements
 

jayducharme

macrumors 601
Jun 22, 2006
4,564
6,144
The thick of it
I wonder if there's something else going on here. I mean, for both of the plaintiffs to NOT have even owned an iPod -- that's pretty egregious. How could they (or their lawyers) even remotely think the lawsuit would succeed?
 

jcmeyer5

macrumors 6502
Sep 7, 2008
416
309
Seems to me that the lawyers are the ones pushing this case... not consumers. Blood sucking leeches!
 

TWSS37

macrumors 65816
Feb 4, 2011
1,107
232
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged
 

MacLawyer

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2009
867
2,259
U.S.A.
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

True, but is it fair to add a plaintiff after trial has started? Apple won't have a chance to depose this new person. What if his/her iPod doesn't qualify either?
 

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

True, but under current rule of law, if there is no plaintiff in a civil suit, the case cannot proceed and is up for dismissal.

My bet is Apple comes out of this unscathed and this plaintiff law firm has a big court fee to pay up and write off.
 

jdag

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2012
837
213
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

Agreed, this doesn't proove anything either way.

However, this feels like a lawsuit that some lawyers are trying to fabricate. The lawyers are having to actually search for people that may or may not have been harmed.

I'll find a hole to twist my ankle in if I walk enough unpaved paths.
 

TWSS37

macrumors 65816
Feb 4, 2011
1,107
232
True, but is it fair to add a plaintiff after trial has started? Apple won't have a chance to depose this new person. What if his/her iPod doesn't qualify either?

True, but under current rule of law, if there is no plaintiff in a civil suit, the case cannot proceed and is up for dismissal.

My bet is Apple comes out of this unscathed and this plaintiff law firm has a big court fee to pay up and write off.

All I am saying was that with the lack of a plaintiff does not prove (or disprove) anything. I am unsure why so many people would be so happy about a dismissal. The judge, I believe, feels there is a case to be heard at the very least.
 

Porco

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2005
3,320
6,945
they should make a movie out of this instead

Yes, they should make a movie out of this …and they could put that movie exclusively on the iTunes store, with its DRM so no-one can play it on non-Apple devices (or a computer with iTunes installed… and the name of the movie could be 'Didn't We Just Leave This Party?!' :p:D
 

TWSS37

macrumors 65816
Feb 4, 2011
1,107
232
Without reading completely up on this why would the plaintiff's method of purchase (using her husband's business cc) disqualify her?
 

JackieInCo

Suspended
Jul 18, 2013
5,178
1,601
Colorado
I wonder if there's something else going on here. I mean, for both of the plaintiffs to NOT have even owned an iPod -- that's pretty egregious. How could they (or their lawyers) even remotely think the lawsuit would succeed?

They are allowing the lawyers to find new plaintiffs because there ARE people worldwide who did buy the iPods in question.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
True, but is it fair to add a plaintiff after trial has started? Apple won't have a chance to depose this new person. What if his/her iPod doesn't qualify either?

Did they depose the previous two? Since this is a class action suit, the named plaintiffs most likely only need to submit an affidavit stating that they are members of the class. The judge is bound to not be pleased with the attorneys but she is probably not going to dismiss the suit outright because the class conceivably involves tens of millions of iPod buyers. What she is unlikely to allow is the throwing one person after another into the suit until they find someone who actually has standing.
 

bbeagle

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2010
3,542
2,982
Buffalo, NY
Without reading completely up on this why would the plaintiff's method of purchase (using her husband's business cc) disqualify her?

Because it was a BUSINESS purchase, not a PERSONAL purchase. The business bought the iPod, not her. Therefore it is not HER iPod. So, SHE is automatically disqualified.

The business can't be added to the class action lawsuit - unless the BUSINESS shows it was harmed. The BUSINESS undoubtedly was not harmed by music on a device that was unplayable, unless it was a music business.

Actually, since this case started NOBODY can be ADDED to the class action lawsuit, so since SHE was disqualified, and the BUSINESS was not already on the class action lawsuit list, the BUSINESS can't be added.
 
Last edited:

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
True, but under current rule of law, if there is no plaintiff in a civil suit, the case cannot proceed and is up for dismissal.

My bet is Apple comes out of this unscathed and this plaintiff law firm has a big court fee to pay up and write off.

If it wasn't a class action, you'd be right. But it is a class action, so the judge is likely to be receptive to the search for a class member.
 

writingdevil

macrumors 6502
Feb 11, 2010
254
32
Yes, they should make a movie out of this …and they could put that movie exclusively on the iTunes store, with its DRM so no-one can play it on non-Apple devices (or a computer with iTunes installed… and the name of the movie could be 'Didn't We Just Leave This Party?!' :p:D

Posts like this make me wonder if people actually have read all the case background, testimony so far, and legal precedence for a class action suit. Or is it an attempt at humor, in which case I definitely wouldn't give up my day job to become an online sit-down comic. Reverse engineer much?
 

Praesto

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2014
164
40
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

Should we send you speeding tickets for every time you broke the speed limit by 1 MPH?

Maybe a ticket for everytime you failed to come to a complete 100% stop at a stop sign or red light.. With no more lead plaintiffs no one cares enough for the case to continue.

The lawyers push it because they get more than anyone if the case succeeds. I truly believe we should have a fine for lawyers that fail at "sue" based cases. Maybe 3-5%..

The woman that wanted to sue manhattan for $900 trillion dollars.. If a lawyer backs a case such as that, they deserve to be fined for impeading the judicial system.
 

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
This is an example of the many things that are wrong with our legal system. The tort system is there to protect people who have been harmed and in theory is a good thing.

When you have a judge holding a case open while attorneys go and search for for a victim you have turned the whole system on its head. If real damage was done I don't think you would have trouble locating a victim.
 

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,525
7,987
I wonder if there's something else going on here. I mean, for both of the plaintiffs to NOT have even owned an iPod -- that's pretty egregious. How could they (or their lawyers) even remotely think the lawsuit would succeed?

They get paid either way.
 

SmileyBlast!

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2011
654
43
Just because a lead plaintiff cannot be found it does not mean that Apple isn't guilty of what is being charged

I wonder what her tale of whoa was.
Such damning testimony that they had to preempt it?

I can't believe this came to a class action lawsuit with millions of plaintiffs.

I could see that if the iPod didn't work as advertised. It just didn't play other people's stuff and would not export the songs you bought for it to be playable on other MP3 players.

There was a lot of piracy back then.

Apple had to make those concessions to the Music Labels or there would have been no music to buy in the iTunes Store.

It was new and untried.

I don't think customer's have a case.
 

teslo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2014
929
599
True, but under current rule of law, if there is no plaintiff in a civil suit, the case cannot proceed and is up for dismissal.

My bet is Apple comes out of this unscathed and this plaintiff law firm has a big court fee to pay up and write off.

my bet is apple comes out of this unscathed no matter what. the case seems flaky at best. i have yet to hear an argument that makes sense, considering the music labels insisted on DRM, not apple. if there's some shining beacon of light for the prosecution, i'd love to hear about it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.