Seungjin Kim v. Apple, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Seungjin Kim v. Apple, Inc.

582 F. App'x 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 2014

DocketNo. 14-7101

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 F. App'x 3 (Seungjin Kim v. Apple, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seungjin Kim v. Apple, Inc., 582 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the [4]*4brief and supplement filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 7, 2014, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)). As appellant has acknowledged in his brief, to the extent the complaint alleged a First Amendment violation, the district court correctly determined the claim did not apply to Apple, Inc., as a private entity.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the [4]*4brief and supplement filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 7, 2014, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C.Cir.1994)). As appellant has acknowledged in his brief, to the extent the complaint alleged a First Amendment violation, the district court correctly determined the claim did not apply to Apple, Inc., as a private entity.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seungjin-kim-v-apple-inc-cadc-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack