Holmes v. Apple Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17 Civ. 4557 (ER) |
| Parties | TYRONE HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., AMAZON.COM, LLC, and CHECKPOINT FLUIDIC SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Ramos, D.J.:
Tyrone Holmes ("Holmes" or "Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit asserting eight causes of action against Defendants Apple Inc. ("Apple"), Amazon.com, LLC ("Amazon"), and CheckPoint Fluidic Systems International, Ltd. ("CheckPoint"). See Compl. (Doc 1). CheckPoint moves to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Doc. 48. Apple moves for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, summary judgment in its favor on all claims. See Doc. 97. Amazon asks the Court to enter judgment against it on Holmes' first cause of action and to dismiss his remaining seven claims. See Doc. 91. In the alternative, it also seeks summary judgment on all claims. Id. Holmes has also moved to amend his Complaint and join FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx") as a Defendant. See Doc. 47. For the following reasons, each of Defendants' motions is GRANTED and Holmes' motion is DENIED.
This case involves a convoluted tale of the sale, purchase, loss, and alleged re-sale of an Apple laptop computer. On May 10, 2016, Apple sold Amazon a MacBook Pro laptop bearing the serial number C02RQ1T3G8WN. Rule 56.1 Statement of Apple ("Apple 56.1") (Doc. 99) ¶ 1. Amazon, in turn, sold that laptop to CheckPoint on June 2, 2016. Rule 56.1 Statement of Amazon ("Amazon 56.1") (Doc. 100) ¶ 4. That laptop was packaged for delivery in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. CheckPoint received the computer by June 7, 2016, and an employee there installed a third-party tracking software, Kaseya, onto the laptop. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. That employee also affixed a "property of CheckPoint Pumps" sticker to the laptop. Id. CheckPoint subsequently attempted to ship the laptop to Dubai through FedEx; however, the laptop did not arrive. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. A CheckPoint employee filed a report with FedEx to notify it of the loss on June 15, 2016. Id. ¶ 6.
On June 22, 2016, Holmes purchased an Apple MacBook Pro laptop and an AppleCare Protection Plan ("AppleCare") through Amazon. See Compl. ¶ 21. The laptop was listed on Amazon's website as "brand new" and Holmes understood that the product would be free from defects and that it would not contain spyware or malware. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23-24. The laptop sent to Holmes was among a batch of new MacBook Pro computers Amazon sourced from Apple, which was packaged for delivery in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania. Amazon 56.1 ¶¶ 8-9. Holmes received the laptop he ordered from Amazon on June 23, 2016. Id. ¶ 10. According to Holmes, that laptop also had the serial number C02RQ1T3G8WN. Compl. ¶ 21. When Holmes received the laptop, it was shrink-wrapped and did not contain any stickers on it. See Doc. 54 (Transcript of September 14, 2017 conference) at 3:19-22; Doc. 86 (Transcript of January 12, 2018 conference) at 5:13-18.
At some point, Holmes gave his wife, Stephanie Scott ("Scott") an Apple laptop.2 Scott registered AppleCare in her name on June 25, 2016 for the laptop bearing the serial number C02RQ1T3G8WN. Apple 56.1 ¶ 12. According to CheckPoint, it was able to locate that laptop on July 23, 2016 using the Kaseya tracking software it had installed and determined that the computer was online and being used by Scott. Id. ¶ 15; see also Declaration of Ruston Mahoney in Support of CheckPoint's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ("Mahoney Decl.") (Doc. 51) Ex. E. CheckPoint subsequently relayed this information to FedEx, and FedEx filed a police report. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
Months later, on September 9, 2016, Holmes received a call from New York City Police Department Detective Rodrigo Caballero. Compl. ¶ 36. Caballero told Holmes that he possessed a MacBook laptop that contained government software belonging to the Department of Defense. Id. He further told Holmes that he and other officers were outside Holmes' residence and wanted to retrieve the computer. Id. Holmes informed Caballero that he was in the midst of conducting a funeral service, and could not assist the officers. Id. ¶ 37.
The next day, Caballero again called Holmes in an attempt to retrieve the computer. Id. ¶ 38. At that time, Holmes told Caballero that he had given the computer to Scott, whose location he was unaware of. Id. The calls from Caballero, however, did not stop, and on September 12, 2016, Holmes retained counsel to represent him in the police investigation. Id. ¶¶ 39-40. That day, Holmes' counsel spoke with Caballero and learned that the computer in Scott's possession bearing the serial number C02RQ1T3G8WN actually belonged to CheckPoint, a contractor for the Department of Defense. Id. ¶ 41. According to Caballero, the computer had been purchased by CheckPoint, had been "outfitted" with "sensitive surveillance software," and was intended to be shipped to Dubai. Id. ¶ 42. Caballero further stated that if the computer was not returned, he had the authority to arrest Holmes. Id. ¶ 43. Holmes' counsel asked Caballero for verification of these allegations, and that same day, counsel received a letter from a vice president at CheckPoint explaining that CheckPoint had been tracking its laptop since the laptop left CheckPoint's facilities, that CheckPoint "legally collected ample information to prove that [Holmes] is in possession of property belonging to CheckPoint," that it simply sought the return of its property, and that it otherwise had "no knowledge or interest in" learning how Holmes came to possess CheckPoint's laptop. See Compl. Ex. B.
The next day, on September 13, 2016, Caballero sent Holmes' counsel an email confirming that the serial number of the CheckPoint computer was C02RQ1T3G8WN, which, according to Holmes, matched the serial number of the laptop he purchased through Amazon. See Compl. ¶ 47. Between then and September 21, 2016, Holmes attempted to contact Scott to facilitate the return of the computer. Id. ¶ 49. On September 21, 2016, Holmes' counsel informed Caballero that Holmes had done all he could to assist the NYPD and asked Caballero to stop contacting Holmes. Id. ¶ 50. In response, Caballero stated that he was planning to proceed with an arrest of Holmes for criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. Id. ¶ 51. Holmes then hired a private investigator who was able to locate Scott. Id. ¶ 54. He then arranged for Scott's sister to visit her on October 1, 2016 so that she could persuade Scott to return the computer. Id. ¶ 56. On October 2, 2016, Holmes learned that the computer was in a public storage unit in Chelsea, New York, but that Scott did not wish to cooperate in returning the computer to CheckPoint. Id. ¶ 58. The next day, Holmes' counsel met with Caballero and another NYPD officer to go to Scott's residence. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. After meeting with Caballero, Scott agreed to accompany the group to her storage unit. Id. ¶ 62. Scott turned over the laptop on October 4, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. See Compl. Ex. E. The "property of CheckPoint Pumps" sticker was still on the underside of the laptop. Amazon 56.1 ¶ 26.
On June 16, 2017, Holmes filed the instant Complaint, raising eight causes of action: (1) breach of contract against Apple and Amazon; (2) breach of express warranty against Apple and Amazon; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability against Apple and Amazon; (4) negligence against Apple, Amazon, and CheckPoint; (5) strict liability against Apple and Amazon; (6) fraudulent concealment against Apple and Amazon; (7) fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation against Apple and Amazon; and (8) false advertising and unfair business practices under § 349 of the New York General Business Law against Apple and Amazon.3
"A plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant." BHC Interim Funding, LP v. Bracewell & Patterson, LLP, No. 02 Civ. 4695 (LTS) (HBP), 2003 WL 21467544, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2003) (citing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999)). To meet this burden where there has been no discovery or evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient for a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Id. The Court construes all of the plaintiff's allegations as true and resolves all doubts in his favor. Casville Invs., Ltd. v. Kates, No. 12 Civ. 6968 (RA), 2013 WL 3465816, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2013) (citing Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., 521 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008)). "However, a plaintiff may not rely on conclusory statements without any supporting facts, as such allegations would 'lack the factual specificity necessary to confer jurisdiction.'" Art Assure Ltd., LLC v. Artmentum GmbH, No. 14 Civ. 3756 (LGS), 2014 WL 5757545, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014) (quoting Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181, 185 (2d Cir. 1998)). As 12(b)(2) motions are "inherently . . . matter[s] requiring the resolution of factual issues outside of the pleadings," courts may rely on additional materials when ruling on such motions. John Hancock Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Universale Reinsurance Co., No. 91 Civ. 3644 (CES), 1992 WL 26765, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1992); Darby Trading Inc. v. Shell Int'l Trading and Shipping Co., 568 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
In a diversity action, personal jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the law of the forum in which the federal court sits. Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 208 (2d Cir. 2001). This determination involves a two-step analysis. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996). In New York, the Court must first determine whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial