The opinion
1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 EPIC GAMES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
6 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
7 v. ON THE PLEADINGS
8 APPLE INC.,
9 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 113
10 APPLE INC.,
Counterclaimant,
11
v.
12
13 EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Counter-Defendant.
14
15
16 On November 10, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff and counter-defendant
17 Epic Games, Inc.’s (“Epic Games”) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was fully
18 briefed. (Dkt. Nos. 113, 129, 135.) For the reasons stated on the record, and confirmed herein,
19 having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, the Court
20 GRANTS Epic Games’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See JRS Products, Inc. v.
21 Matsushita Electr. Corp. of Am., 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 183 (2004) (“[W]rongful or not, the
22 termination [of the contract] is not ‘independent’ of [defendant’s] interference with [plaintiff’s]
23 interest. . . . [A] breach of contract claim cannot be transmuted into tort liability by claiming that
24 the breach interfered with the promisee’s business.”); Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLP, 184
25 Cal.App.4th 38, 45 (2010) (“Neither legal title nor absolute ownership of the property is
26 necessary. . . . A party need only allege it is ‘entitled to immediate possession at the time of
27 conversion. . . .’ . . . However, a mere contractual right of payment, without more, will not
1 Accordingly, defendant and counterclaimant Apple Inc.’s (‘Apple’) counterclaims for
2 || Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count IV) and Conversion (Count
3 V) are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Apple’s requests for punitive damages are also
4 || DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5 IT Is SO ORDERED.
6 Dated: November 18, 2020
7
3 YVONNE GONZALEZ □□□□□
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
«4
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28