Apple can remove apps from list “with or without cause,” says judge in loss over Musi app

“Admitting to having received an email is materially different from admitting to having received Musi’s message. conclusion of the email: that Apple knowingly relied on false evidence,” Lee wrote.

Musi’s law firm presented the theory as indisputable fact. But the judge found that a lawyer conducting an objectively reasonable investigation would not have found the allegation to be well-founded.

“Accordingly, the Court finds that Musi’s counsel violated Rule 11 because there was no factual basis for him to allege that Apple ‘admitted’ that the NMPA’s evidence regarding Musi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple knew that the evidence was false,” Lee wrote.

Lee assessed the award of fees and costs entirely against the law firm Winston & Strawn, rather than Musi, stating that “counsel is more directly responsible for the violation of Rule 11, and counsel asked the Court not to sanction Musi directly.” music is represented by Winston & Strawn attorneys Jennifer Golinveaux, Samantha Looker and Jeff Wilkerson.

In another matter, Musi asked to be awarded attorneys’ fees for defending Apple’s sanctions motion. Lee called this request “bold” and noted that “Musi is not the predominant party and Apple’s motion has substantial merits.” Furthermore, while Lee concluded that some of Musi’s allegations challenged by Apple did not constitute violations of Rule 11, he concluded that each Musi accusation challenged by Apple “bordered on baselessness.”

We contacted Musi and his attorneys today and will update this article if we hear back.