AT&T Blasts Appeal of ex-Apple Metallurgist as ‘Meritless and Abusive’

Ganiyu Jaiyeola, the former Apple metallurgist whose appeal seeks injunctive relief to block Apple, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon from advertising the iPhone 15 Pro as a titanium device (see 2401080002), “is a pro se serial litigant who has been sanctioned in multiple jurisdictions across the country for repeatedly filing baseless petitions,” said AT&T’s answering brief Monday (docket 23-4027) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This appeal “is similarly meritless and abusive,” it said.

Jaiyeola’s unsuccessful motion in the district court to block the iPhone 15 Pro ads rested on his “baseless assertion” that the defendants falsely advertised the nature of the iPhone 15 Pro, said AT&T’s brief. According to Jaiyeola, that advertising misleads consumers into thinking that the iPhone 15 Pro is made with “only titanium,” it said.

In his appeal, Jaiyeola claims that it was “appealable error” for the district court to deny his motion, and to do so in two weeks, said AT&T’s brief. According to Jaiyeola, that wasn’t “soon enough,” and it was wrong for the district court to make a decision on the “purportedly ex parte motion” until after a defendant responded to that motion, it said.

But the district court’s opinion denying the motion “was well-reasoned and should be affirmed,” said AT&T’s brief. The district court “thoroughly explained why Jaiyeola failed to fulfill his burden for injunctive relief,” it said.

The key reason is that Jaiyeola doesn’t have standing to sue for false advertising under either the Lanham Act or California state law, said AT&T’s brief. Standing under the Lanham Act is “confined to persons who can assert an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales,” it said. But Jaiyeola, “a mere consumer,” doesn’t make such an allegation, it said.

Standing under California state law “is limited to persons who were injured by their reliance on the alleged false advertisement,” said AT&T’s brief. But Jaiyeola doesn’t allege that he purchased the iPhone at issue, and in subsequent filings, he has “affirmatively disclaimed his reliance” on any of the defendants’ “alleged false advertisements,” it said.

The district court also correctly found that Jaiyeola’s claims “were unlikely to succeed on the merits and, therefore, could not form the basis of preliminary injunctive relief,” said AT&T’s brief. Jaiyeola failed to state a “coherent” claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “much less the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) applicable to false advertising suits,” it said.

Jaiyeola also failed to present the district court with evidence “on which the district court could infer" that any alleged advertisements were false, or that they tended to deceive consumers, that they were material to consumers’ purchasing decisions, or were injurious to any interests covered by either the Lanham Act or California false advertising law, said the brief. The district court further noted that Jaiyeola hasn’t shown that damages arising from any purported false advertising couldn’t be remedied through monetary damages, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the public interest would be served by an injunction, it said.

The 9th Circuit should affirm the district court’s denial of the motion, said AT&T’s brief. Jaiyeola plainly doesn’t have standing to pursue his claims, it said. His “threadbare” motion -- “bereft of evidentiary support” -- can’t support “drastic injunctive relief on such short notice,” it said.