Matt Hughes

Word Count: 342 (not incl. prompt)

Question:
Plaintiffs are California and Arizona consumers who purchased iPhones from Apple, a
Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters in Cupertino, California. Plaintiffs
complain that their eardrums were damaged using the earpieces because their iPhones had
defective volume control. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Apple, the headphone speaker manufacturer (Pop!, a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in India), and the software company to which
Apple outsourced the volume control for all audio applications (MusicNrd, a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Mass). Apple is Pop!s only
United States client; its principal market is in Southeast Asia. They produce a unique, all-white,
earpiece for Apple. MusicNrd provides the same volume control software for all major
cellphone manufacturers selling phones in the United States. Neither company advertises, has
employees, or offices in California, and neither company provides customer support to
consumers there. Assume the iPhones at issue here were purchased in Apple stores in
California, and that the products were fully assembled in China based on design instructions
and supervision provided by Apples legendary design executives working in Cupertino.
1)

Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

Subject matter jurisdiction requires diversity of parties per 1332 or a disputed federal
question per 1331. No federal question is raised so there is no subject matter jurisdiction
on that basis. Because 1s domicile and Apples principal place of business are both
California, there is no diversity. If Apple were dropped from the suit or 2 dropped 1
from the suit, diversity is satisfied and the suit could proceed in federal court.
Alternately, the suit could proceed in state court without litigating diversity.

2)

Drawing reasonable inferences about corporate structure, supply contracts between

manufacturers and retailers, etc. does the court have personal jurisdiction?
Intl Shoe assures personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apples primary place of business
is in California, the suit arises from Apples activities there and compelling Apples
presence in California courts is not unfair or burdensome or does not violate due
process.
Under Intl Shoe, personal jurisdiction over MusicNrd is arguable. MusicNrd has an
ongoing business relationship with Apple to provide software. This contact may be of a
quantum sufficient to warrant personal jurisdiction. However, MusicNrd lacks any other
contact with California such as advertising, direct sales to California consumers,
customer service, flow of product, employees or property. Further, MusicNrd provides
Page 1 of 2

Matt Hughes
Word Count: 342 (not incl. prompt)
identical software to other companies who sell products across the US. So, the court may
find that MusicNrd has insufficient contact with California to assert personal
jurisdiction.
Under Asahi, personal jurisdiction over Pop! is unlikely. Evidence for purposeful
availment is limited to its arrangement with Apple, its only US client, to manufacture
speakers according to Apples design specifications. The argument that Pop! sought out
one California corporation and acts under their direction may be persuasive. However,
no further evidence exists for purposeful availment including advertising, direct sales,
customer service, flow of product, employees or property. While the claim arises from
the California sale of an iPhone containing a Pop! component, it involves a defect in the
final product, assembled in China, and it is equally likely that the same component
could have been sold in any other retail outlet. This and the fact that Pop!s primary
market is southeast Asia make it difficult to argue that Pop! specifically targeted
California.

Page 2 of 2