UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. APPLE INC.
2:24-cv-04055
D.N.J.Sep 9, 2024Background
- The United States and Attorneys General from twenty states filed an antitrust suit against Apple Inc., alleging monopolization of the smartphone market.
- TaiMing Zhang, a resident of China, was not a party to the case but sought to intervene, style himself an interested party, and filed several motions (to dismiss, for injunction, intervention, and other relief).
- Zhang previously sued Apple in the Northern District of California alleging defective iPhones caused him harm; that suit was dismissed as frivolous and affirmed on appeal.
- Zhang sought to dismiss the antitrust case and to enjoin the DOJ from pursuing any further litigation against Apple, in order to compel a criminal investigation into his unrelated personal allegations about Apple.
- Both the United States and Apple opposed, arguing Zhang lacked a right or reason to intervene or seek dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zhang may intervene under Rule 24(a) | Zhang claims an interest in Apple's conduct. | No legally cognizable interest; no right to intervene | No right to intervene |
| Whether Zhang satisfied requirements for Rule 24(b) permissive intervention | Zhang asserts overlap in questions of law/fact | No shared claim; issues unrelated to antitrust case | No discretionary intervention |
| Whether Zhang has standing to move for dismissal | Zhang argues Court should hear his motion | Only a party/intervenor may seek dismissal | Dismissal motion moot, denied |
| Effect of Zhang not intervening on other motions | Zhang seeks various injunctive/sanctions relief | Zhang lacks standing as a non-party | All other motions denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (intervention requires a legally cognizable interest that may be impaired by the disposition of the case)
- Buckeye Coal & Ry. Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 269 U.S. 42 (1925) (in federal antitrust litigation, only the United States may represent the public interest)
- U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (government must formally intervene to seek dismissal in a qui tam action)