Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System et al vs Timothy Cook et al
Case Information
Motion(s)
Consolidate
Motion Type Tags
Other
Parties
- Plaintiff: Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System
- Defendant: Timothy Cook
- Defendant: Luca Maestri
- Defendant: Arthur Levison
- Defendant: Andrea Jung
- Defendant: Ronald Sugar
- Defendant: Susan Wagner
- Defendant: Monica Lozano
- Defendant: Alex Gorsky
- Defendant: Wanda Austin
- Defendant: Albert Gore Jr.
- Defendant: James Bell
- Defendant: Robert Iger
- Defendant: Millard Drexler
Ruling
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.)