(credit: Alper Çuğun)
On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting Apple’s extended service plan. US District Judge William Orrick shot down (PDF) all five of the plaintiff’s legal theories and also had scathing words for the Texas lawyer who filed the suit.
English v. Apple was originally filed in 2013 in Galveston, Texas, and the case was later transferred to California. The three named plaintiffs, Patricia Adkins, Jennifer Galindo, and Fabrienne English, all said that Apple’s AppleCare extended service plans amounted to a “fraudulent and unlawful scheme” because the company sometimes uses refurbished iPhones as replacement units.
But none of the plaintiffs were disgruntled consumers who went looking for a lawyer after getting bad service. Galindo was a paralegal for Renee Kennedy, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit, and Adkins had also worked for Kennedy in the past. Kennedy gave them both “monetary gifts to thank them for their excellent work,” and both women used those “gifts” to buy AppleCare Plus, referred to as “AC+” in court papers.
Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments