United States District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte (Northern District of California) denied a motion to compel arbitration, dismiss claims, or stay the matter. Weisblatt v. Apple, Inc., 2010 WL 4071147 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2010). The suit concerns the change away from the unlimited data plan associated with the Apple 3G-enabled iPad. AT&T Mobility LLC moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss all claims against it. In the alternative, AT&T Mobility moved for a stay pending a Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 3322, 176 L.Ed.2d 1218 (2010) (No. 09-893). Defendant Apple joined in the motion to stay.
The Court denied the motion, without prejudice, saying:
Given the likelihood that the Supreme Court will speak directly to the class action waiver issue in Concepcion, compelling arbitration at this point would be unwarranted. Even though plaintiffs' arguments regarding the unconscionability of the class action waiver may have less merit under New York law, a Supreme Court decision in Concepcion is still likely to simplify the issue. Accordingly, ATTM's motion to compel arbitration is denied without prejudice.
Slip op., at 3. The Court went on to hold:
On balance, the court finds that a stay is unwarranted. That said, the claims with respect to ATTM will likely be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Concepcion. Accordingly, it makes little sense to begin discovery with respect to the claims focused on ATTM. Also, the court at this time declines to decide whether plaintiff Hanna's iPhone 3GS arbitration agreement now applies to his iPad dispute. In any event, Concepcion is likely to clarify the enforceability of the iPhone 3GS arbitration agreement as well as the iPad arbitration agreement.
Slip op., at 4. The Court then limited discovery to written discovery against Apple.