Opperman v. Kong Technologies, Inc., 3:13-cv-00453

This putative class action concerns iDevice address book privacy and alleged app-based data transfers via Apple's App Store; plaintiffs allege multiple app developers and Apple violated privacy, misappropriation, and related statutes.
Plaintiffs filed March 12, 2012 in Western District of Texas; transferred to Northern District of California on Jan 15, 2013; operative SAC names Apple and sixteen developers.
Key devices are iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch with pre-installed Apps; plaintiffs claim Apple’s iOS Developer Program and App Store standards governed app behavior and allegedly permitted or failed to prevent address-book theft.
Alleged defendants include Apple, Twitter, Electronic Arts, Chillingo, Instagram, and other app developers; the SAC asserts joint and several liability among Apple and developers for common transactions.
Defendants moved to sever under Rule 21/Rule 20, urging non-identical transactions and prejudice; plaintiffs urged unity due to shared transaction/occurrence and common questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 20(a)(2) permissive joinder applies.	Plaintiffs: Apple and each developer are joint tortfeasors; common transaction exists.	Defendants: Actions are separable; joinder risks prejudice.	Rule 20(a)(2) satisfied; motions denied without prejudice.

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (joinder encouraged to promote trial convenience; broad scope of action)
League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1977) (joinder to promote efficiency and avoid multiple suits)
United States v. Testa, 548 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1977) (gives framework for Rule 20(a)(2) analysis and common transaction)