United States Ninth Circuit

In a putative class action against Apple, alleging that it conspired with AT&T Mobility (ATTM) to violate federal antitrust laws, the district court’s order dismissing the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, for failure to join an alleged co-conspirator, ATTM, as a defendant, is reversed where: 1) the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 over plaintiffs' appeal from a final decision of the district court even though the current case, Apple III, has been consolidated with another case, Apple II, in which the district court had dismissed a voice and data aftermarket monopolization claim for failure to join ATTM as a party; 2) even though the parties in Apple III had stipulated to submit the Apple II briefs on the Rule 19 issue and had agreed that the district court should grant Apple’s motion to dismiss if it decided to follow the decision in Apple II the district court’s judgment was adverse to plaintiffs and thus appealable; 3) on the merits, the district court abused its discretion in finding that ATTM was a necessary party under Rule 19; and 4) ATTM was not a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)(A).

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/29/2015
• Published 06/29/2015

Judges

• Smith

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel