City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System et al vs Timothy Cook et al

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV376477 Rodriguez-Lopez v. Toray Advanced Composites, Inc. (Class Action) Motion: Final Approval Granted May 15, 2026

Parties need not appear LINE 2 21CV379924 Flores v. VP Security Services, Inc. (PAGA) Motion: Withdraw as attorney is GRANTED

Click on line 2 for tentative ruling LINE 3 23CV424953 Schenk v. Smith’s GTS, Inc. (Class Action/PAGA) Motion: Preliminary Approval is GRANTED

Click on line 3 for tentative ruling LINE 4 24CV434602 Urzua v. Lyten, Inc. (Class Action/PAGA) Hearing: Motion for Approval is GRANTED

Click on line 4 for tentative ruling LINE 5 25CV467513 Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System et al vs Timothy Cook et al Motion: Consolidate is DENIED

Click on line 5 for tentative ruling lines 5,7 and 8 LINE 6 25CV468388 Delmy Landverde vs Lusamerica Foods, Inc., a California corporation Hearing: Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED

Click on line 6 for tentative ruling LINE 7 25CV472876 Kevin Anguka vs Timothy Cook et al Motion: Consolidate

Click on line 5 LINE 8 25CV473618 City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System et al vs Timothy Cook et al Motion: Consolidate

Click on line 5 LINE 9 LINE 10 LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13

1 Calendar Line 5, 7-8

Case Name: Kevin Anguka v. Timothy D. Cook, et al. Case No.: 25CV472876

This is a shareholder derivative complaint for breach of fiduciary duty.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Kevin Anguka and City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion to consolidate, which is opposed. As explained below, the Court DENIES the motion to consolidate.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of the operative complaint (“Complaint”), Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of nominal defendant Apple against Timothy Cook, Luca Maestri, Arthur Levison, Andrea Jung, Ronald Sugar, Susan Wagner, Monica Lozano, Alex Gorsky, Wanda Austin, Albert Gore Jr., James Bell, Robert Iger, and Millard Drexler (collectively, “Individual Defendants”), who are officers and directors of Apple, for breach of fiduciary duty which have exposed Apple to significant liability for repeatedly violating antitrust laws. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1- 2, 17-29.)

On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Apple which was joined by 16 states and district Attorneys General. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) Since then four more states have joined the suit. (Ibid.) Apple also facts lawsuits from private entities such as Epic Games. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-6.) On April 23, 2025, the European Commission found Apple in breach of the Digital Markets Act. (Complaint, ¶ 7.)

Individual Defendants breached their duties by allowing the company to engage in violations of antitrust laws. (Complaint, ¶¶ 32-44.) Apple has established and continues to maintain monopoly power in the smartphone market. (Complaint, ¶¶ 45-66.) Apple has maintained and reinforced its dominant position in the smartphone through a broad and evolving course of anticompetitive conduct. (Complaint, ¶¶ 67-93.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Anguka filed his Complaint on August 15, 2025, which asserts a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On August 25, 2025, plaintiffs in City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Cook, et al. initiated their action for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On June 3, 2025, plaintiffs in Bucks County initiated their action, which asserts 3 claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

II. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to consolidate the following matters for all purposes: (1) Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Cook, et al. (25CV4677513) (Bucks County); (2) Anguka v. Cook, et al. (25CV472876) (Anguka); and (3) City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Cook, et al. (25CV473618) (Hialeah).

A. Legal Standard

“California procedural law is infused with a solicitude, if not an altogether outright preference for the economies of scale achieved by consolidating related cases into a single, centrally managed proceeding.” (Petersen v. Bank of America Cop. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 248.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, which governs consolidation, provides, When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

“Consolidation under [Section 1048] is permissive, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1149 (Hamilton).) When two or more actions are consolidated for all purposes, the separate actions are “merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Id., at p. 1147.) When actions are consolidated for trial only, the two actions remain separate, and retain their separate case numbers; they are tried together for reasons of convenience and efficiency.” (Ibid.)

B.

Discussion

On May 18, 2024, and July 8, 2025, Plaintiff Anguka sent inspection demands to Apple for the production of certain company documents, including meeting minutes, resolutions, reports, or other materials made, reviewed, or provided to the Board of Directors, related to the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP for its work on the various antitrust matters for Apple over the years. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MPA”), p. 3:11-17.) Apple produced responsive documents on November 21, 2024 and June 17, 2025. (MPA, p. 3:22-23.) Each of the subject cases have been designated as complex. Additionally, they are all shareholder derivative cases.

Plaintiffs argue consolidation is proper because there are common questions of law as each case alleged Individual Defendants breached their duties by causing and allowing Apple’s violation of antitrust laws. (MPA, p. 9:1-3.) They further argue there are common questions of fact as they allege similar conduct. The motion is opposed by Plaintiffs Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System and Philadelphia Asbestos Workers Pension & Health & Welfare Fund and the Western Pennsylvania Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund (“Western Fund”) (collectively, “Bucks County Plaintiffs”).2 (Bucks County Plaintiffs’ Opposition (“Opp.”), p. 6: 1-7.)

Defendants argue that Bucks County contains allegations related to an injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.) 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (Epic Games) and with a securities class action titled City of Coral Springs Police Officers’ Pension Plan v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.) 5:25-cv-062520NW (Coral Springs). (Defendants’ Response, p. 3:15-20.)

2 At the time, Bucks County Plaintiffs filed their opposition, Western Fund’s complaint had not been accepted by the court, however, it has since been accepted. (See Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund v. Timothy Cook, et al., 26CV491926 (Western Fund).)

3 Defendants argue that if these matters are consolidated, the Court should stay the consolidated action pending resolution of the Epic-related allegations in the Coral Springs action. (Defendants’ Response, p. 3:20-23.) To the extent Defendants rely on arguments made in the Bucks County Defendants’ motion to stay, that motion is not currently before the Court, thus, the Court declines to address those specific arguments at this time.

In opposition, Bucks County Plaintiffs argue that consolidation is improper because although there is some overlap, Anguka and Hialeah raise substantially different questions of law and fact as they pertain to some different defendants, unconnected conduct, and a different relevant time period. (Opp., p. 10: 15-18.) On this basis, they argue that Anguka and Hialeah will require separate analyses regarding futility and breaches of fiduciary duty as to the named defendants, board compositions, relevant time periods, and the underlying conduct. (Opp., p. 10:19-21.)

They fail to explain how the analysis will be materially different when many of the same Individual Defendants are named in each action. Bucks County Plaintiffs’ further argue there are different questions of fact as the breaches of fiduciary duty claims in Anguka also arise from the following: (1) the DOJ lawsuit against Apple for monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) The French Competition Authority’s (“FCA”) imposition of finds against Apple for anticompetitive conduct; (3) the European Commission’s imposition of finds against Apple related to its music store; (4) a multi-district litigation in the District off New Jersey; (5) the 2022 antitrust law filed by Affinity Credit Union; and (6) the FAC’s imposition of a fine for Apple’s conduct regarding the ATT framework.

While there are indisputably common questions of law and fact, the Anguka and Hialeah cases are predicated on broader conduct than the Bucks County case. This, in turn, impacts the issues of liability especially as to the investigations mentioned only in Anguka and Hialeah. In other words, the liability predicated on conduct that does not overlap with Epic Games. Moreover, this will likely require unique evidence and witnesses. In this Court’s view, it would not further the interest of judicial economy to consolidate these matters where disputes will likely arise based on the differences between them. Furthermore, jury confusion may result from the consolidation of these matters.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to consolidate is DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Case Name: Case No.:

- oo0oo -

1 Calendar Line 8

Case Name: Case No.:

- oo0oo -