5/19/2025 -Federal Court Grants My Motion Against Apple’s Evasive Answer — A Rare Procedural Win

Federal Court Grants My Motion Against Apple’s Evasive Answer — A Rare Procedural Win for Workers, Whistleblowers, and the Public

On May 19 2025, a federal judge granted part of my motion to strike legally invalid defenses from Apple’s answer to my lawsuit — including claims that I caused my own injuries, that I had "unclean hands," or that they might find new dirt on me later.

These defenses were not only baseless, they were harassment and procedural distractions — and now, they're gone.

It’s a small but rare and significant win — especially for someone representing themselves, without a law firm, in a case involving retaliation, environmental exposure, civil rights, and RICO violations. 

After 17 months of litigation, Apple finally filed an Answer to my Fifth Amended Complaint. It was a wall of vague denials, evasive “we lack knowledge” statements (even about their own executives’ actions), and 16 generic affirmative defenses — most of which had no legal basis at all.

In response, I filed:

• A Rule 12(f) motion to strike, asking the court to remove defenses that were irrelevant or improperly pled.
• A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, asking the court to require Apple to clarify evasive or vague denials.

​On May 19, 2025, the court granted my motion to strike in part. The judge removed several of Apple’s most questionable defenses, including:

• That I failed to state a claim (not a valid defense),
  • "The Court grants the motion to strike...To the extent the Court has already rejected arguments that Ms. Gjovik failed to state a claim for relief for any cause of action, Apple may not relitigate the issue absent leave of the Court." (pages 3-4)
    
• That I was responsible for my own injuries,
  • "The sixth affirmative defense is “failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate any damages ... The seventh affirmative defense is... Apple is entitled to an offset for any monies Plaintiff received from any source after Plaintiff ceased to be employed by Apple... The Court grants the motion to strike... Apple... should still provide some concrete allegations along the lines of the above to support the defenses." (pages 4-5)
  • "Apple asserts that 'no conduct by or attributable to it was the cause in fact or legal cause of the damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff,” and “[s]hould it be determined that Plaintiff was damaged, then said damages were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own conduct.'... The Court grants the motion to strike, but with leave to amend...Apple should still provide some concrete allegations to that effect to support the defense." (page 7)
    
• That I had “unclean hands,” 
  • "In the eighth affirmative defense, Apple asserts: Plaintiff’s recovery is barred in whole or in part by her own unclean hands and by the doctrines of unclean hands, in pari delicto and/or after-acquired evidence, or in the alternative, these doctrines cut off or reduce her alleged damages.... The Court grants the motion to strike, but with leave to amend.... Apple should still provide some concrete allegations along the lines of the above to support the defense, particularly because this information is, at least in part, within its possession, custody, or control." (page 5)
    
• That Apple could later discover “after-acquired evidence” to justify what they already did,
  • "Apple asserts 'assuming arguendo that discriminatory or retaliatory reasons had been a motivating factor in any employment decision toward Plaintiff (which they were not), Apple would have made the same decisions toward Plaintiff in any case for legitimate, non-discriminatory and/or nonretaliatory business reasons'... The motion to strike is granted, but with leave to amend... The Court strikes the defenses only because Apple has not provided concrete facts to support the defenses.." (pages 7-8)
    
• ​That workers' compensation blocks my civil claims, 
  • "The motion to strike is granted. Apple has suggested that workers’ compensation exclusivity applies because Ms. Gjovik has asserted not just statutory claims but also a common law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. But courts have held that a claim for wrongful termination (as opposed to, e.g., intentional infliction of emotional distress) is not subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity... As for Apple’s alternative position – i.e., any workers’ compensation could still be used as a set-off to damages, if awarded – the Court agrees with Ms. Gjovik that some concrete allegations are needed. For example, is Apple aware of any workers’ compensation awarded to Ms. Gjovik during the time she was employed with Apple? The motion to strike is therefore granted, but with leave to amend (i.e., to the extent Apple asserts that workers’ compensation may be used as a set-off)." (pages 6-7)​
    
• That Apple had a right to fire me for any reason, and even if it didn't, it thought it did and that should be enough,
  • "Apple asserts as follows.. 'Plaintiff was an at-will employee with no entitlement to continued employment pursuant to Labor Code section 2922....any alleged action that [Apple] took with respect to Plaintiff was privileged and justified and protected by the doctrine of business necessity.... Apple at all times acted without malice, in good faith, and with reasonable grounds for believing its actions did not violate the law... Apple was fully justified, and exercised reasonable care, prudence, skill and business judgment with respect to Plaintiff, and any decisions with respect to Plaintiff were made without regard to Plaintiff’s alleged disability, national origin, age or other protected basis.'  The motion to strike is granted, but with leave to amend. The Court strikes the defenses only because Apple has not provided concrete facts to support the defenses." (pages 7-8)
    
• And that Apple can make up more defenses later. 
  • "​The sixteenth affirmative defense is as follows: 'Apple reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate to do so.... The Court grants the motion. “The mere reservation of affirmative defenses is not an affirmative defense.’” (pages 8-9).

(Note: The court denied the 12(e) motion but openly criticized Apple’s lack of clarity, calling parts of their Answer vague and unnecessary.)

These types of motions are rarely granted — especially when filed by plaintiffs, and especially when you’re doing it without a lawyer against one of the most powerful companies on Earth.
​
By granting this motion:

• The judge forced Apple to remove legally unsupported attacks from their Answer.
• Apple now has to re-write their legal defenses, and can’t rely on vague excuses or future fishing expeditions.
• ​The court even reminded Apple that if they want to seek sanctions, they need to do it formally — not through threats in footnotes.

​
This ruling isn’t flashy. But it cuts the noise, forces Apple to engage honestly, and strengthens the foundation for what’s coming next.

What makes this win especially unusual:

• Courts rarely grant 12(f) motions, especially to strike defenses, especially from a plaintiff; 
• Judges almost never grant them in cases already this complex, with dozens of underlying claims;
• And courts almost never grant them when the plaintiff is pro se — and has been under repeated threat of sanctions from the Defendent.

The order struck over half of Apple’s affirmative defenses as “conclusory,” “unsupported,” or “improper under Rule 8(c).” The court didn’t issue sanctions against me (despite Apple’s demands) and acknowledged the need for clearer positions from Apple moving forward.

These motions often lose. Mine didn’t. That alone should tell you something.

Apple tried to argue:

• That I somehow “deserved” what happened to me,
• That my claims were procedurally defective even after five rounds of amendment,
• That they might someday find new facts to justify what they did,
• And that my case should just be shut down entirely.

The judge threw those defenses out.

This ruling matters because these defenses aren’t just legal moves — they’re weapons companies use to intimidate and discredit workers who speak up.

By forcing Apple to drop these arguments, the court helped make sure the focus returns to the real issues: Retaliation. Harassment. Toxic exposure. Misuse of legal systems to cover up misconduct.

That’s not just a win in court. It’s a step toward fairness — for me, and for anyone who’s ever been told their story didn’t matter because the company said so.

​Apple now has 14 days to refile their Answer. We’ll see what they do with it. Meanwhile:

• I’m hopeful for a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit in my appeal — challenging dismissals of my RICO, toxic tort, civil rights, and IIED claims.
• I’m still pushing for fairness, accountability, and clarity — inside and outside the courtroom.

This was just one step. But it was a step in the right direction.

To the workers, whistleblowers, legal nerds, journalists, and fellow survivors following this case: Thank you. I fight harder because I know you’re watching, learning, and sometimes fighting, too.

Hang in there. Keep watching. The truth is coming out.

-Ashley 

Dockets:

• US District Court
• US Court of Appeals

May 19 2025 Decision & Order:

court_decision_and_order_gov.uscourts.cand.417952.215.0.pdf
File Size:	188 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---