throbber
Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`ISABELLE L. ORD (Bar No. 198224)
`isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
`JEANETTE T. BARZELAY (Bar No. 261780)
`jeanette.barzelay@dlapiper.com
`ALEXANDER E. WOLF (Bar No. 299775)
`alexander.wolf@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
`Tel: 415.836.2500
`Fax: 415.836.2501
`
`RAJ N. SHAH (admitted pro hac vice)
`raj.shah@dlapiper.com
`ERIC M. ROBERTS (admitted pro hac vice)
`eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606-0089
`Tel: 312.368.4000
`Fax: 312.236.7516
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`MATTHEW PRICE, individually and on behalf
` CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC., a California corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS SECOND AMENDED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date: November 17, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Crtrm: 2 (4th Floor, Oakland)
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`Complaint filed: April 20, 2021
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS .................................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Apple Media Service Terms and Conditions. ................................................. 3
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief. .................................................................................. 5
`
`The Prior Dismissal Order. ..................................................................................... 6
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (CIV. L.R. 7-4(A)(3)) ........................................................... 7
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any Specific Contract Term That Apple Allegedly
`Breached. ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Apple Properly Exercised Its Express Termination Right under the Terms. ....... 11
`
`Plaintiff Does Not Allege Sufficient Facts to Show That He Fully
`Performed under the Terms. ................................................................................. 12
`
`Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim Is Barred by the Terms’ Waiver and
`Limitation of Liability Provisions. ....................................................................... 13
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`i
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 2, 7
`
`Bass v. Facebook, Inc.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................................ 13, 14
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 2, 7
`
`Brackett v. Am. Airlines Group, Inc.,
`21-cv-02681-HSG, 2022 WL 282529 (Jan. 31, 2022) (Gilliam, J.)................................ 8, 9, 12
`
`Carma Dev. (Cal.) Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc.,
`2 Cal. 4th 342 (1992) ............................................................................................................... 11
`
`Cole v. Sunnyvale,
`2010 WL 532428 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010) ......................................................................... 8, 11
`
`Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg,
`593 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of S.F.,
`792 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys. USA, Inc.,
`209 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (2012) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.,
`2021 WL 2520103 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Goulatte v. CitiMortgage, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12132060 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2013) ....................................................................... 12
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`18-cv-07597-BLF, 2019 WL 11502875 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2019) ................................. 13, 14
`
`In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig.,
`MD 11-2269 TEH, 2012 WL 1123863 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) ................................... 8, 9, 12
`
`In re Century Aluminum Co. Secs. Litig.,
`729 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`ii
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`Jackson v. Rhino Entertainment Co.,
`2016 WL 11002546 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) ...................................................................... 12
`
`Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,
`854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`150 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2007) .................................................................................................. 8, 12
`
`Miron v. Herbalife Intern., Inc.,
`11 F. App'x 927 (2001) ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Mishiyev v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`444 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 11
`
`Rankin v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`13-cv-01117-JCS, 2013 WL 3456949 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) ............................................... 9
`
`Richardson v. First Centennial Mortg. Corp.,
`2018 11346757 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) ......................................................................... 2, 12
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Stanislaus Food Products Co. v. USS-POSCO Industries,
`782 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Meridian Mgmt. Group, Inc.,
`15-cv-01039, 2015 WL 4718998 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) (Gilliam, J.) ........................... 9, 10
`
`Woods v. Google Inc.,
`2011 WL 3501403 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Young v. Facebook, Inc.,
`790 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`STATUTES
`
`Civ. L.R. 7-4(A)(3) ......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ...................................................................................................................... 7, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................... 1, 7
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`iii
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
`as this matter may be heard by the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor,
`of the above-entitled Court located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, 94612, Defendant
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will, and hereby does, move to dismiss with prejudice the Second Amended
`Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiff Matthew Price (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated, and each claim asserted therein against Apple.
`Apple brings this Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because
`Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief as to any and each claim alleged against Apple. This Motion
`is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all
`pleadings, arguments, and matters before the Court.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is his third attempt to state a claim against
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for allegedly terminating his Apple ID because he sought and obtained
`chargebacks on multiple in-app game purchases. But the SAC fares no better because Plaintiff still
`fails to allege any facts establishing that Apple’s alleged conduct was impermissible. As the Court
`acknowledged in dismissing the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Apple’s Media Services
`Terms and Conditions (the “Terms”) grant Apple a clear, unambiguous, and enforceable right to
`terminate the “Services” to Plaintiff “if Apple determined (or even suspected) that he failed to
`comply with the Apple Terms.” See Dkt. 52 (“Order”) at 11. Having twice failed to show that
`Apple’s exercise of its contractual right to terminate his Apple ID and access to the Services
`violated California law and public policy, Plaintiff tries a new tack in the SAC—he now concedes
`that the Terms are enforceable but contends that Apple allegedly breached them by “erroneously”
`determining that Plaintiff’s conduct failed to comply with the Terms.
`But Plaintiff’s own allegations indicate that Apple rightfully could have determined that he
`breached the Terms by engaging in the admitted chargebacks. The Terms expressly prohibit users
`1
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`from engaging in refund abuse, and Plaintiff admits he made repeated “chargebacks,” i.e., obtained
`repeated refunds. SAC ¶ 26. Plaintiff’s own alleged facts demonstrate that Plaintiff’s repeated
`chargebacks did not comply with the Terms. Id. ¶¶ 27, 64. By contrast, the SAC’s threadbare
`allegations do not support Plaintiff’s assertion that his chargebacks were “lawful” or that he
`otherwise complied with the Terms.
`In short, Plaintiff has attempted to repackage his prior unsuccessful claims as a single claim
`for “breach of contract,” but this effort does not alter the outcome and again compels dismissal—
`this time with prejudice. In particular, the SAC’s new breach of contract claim fails on least the
`following four grounds.
`First, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific term or obligation under the Terms that Apple
`breached by allegedly terminating his Apple ID and access to Services due to chargeback-related
`activity. That alone is fatal to Plaintiff’s claim.
`Second, the Terms foreclose Plaintiff’s claim because they expressly permit the action
`Plaintiff alleges as the breach (i.e., terminating Services to Plaintiff). As the Court’s prior Order
`affirmed, the Terms include a “TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF SERVICES” provision
`(“Termination Provision”) that “gives Apple the right to terminate a user’s Apple ID account if it
`suspects a user has ‘failed . . . to comply with any of the provisions of’ the Apple Terms,” such that
`“Plaintiff knew that he would lose access to his purchased apps and services if Apple determined
`(or even suspected) that he failed to comply with the Apple terms.” Order at 11. Plaintiff’s theory
`of breach is inconsistent with Apple’s broad and express termination rights under the Terms.
`Third, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts showing that he complied with the Terms.
`Instead, he relies only on conclusory assertions that he did not breach the Terms and used his
`Apple ID “in a lawful manner at all times.” SAC ¶¶ 22-23, 42. Such summary statements do not
`cross the pleading thresholds set by Twombly, Iqbal, and their progeny, and the Court need not
`accept the statements as true on a motion to dismiss.
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s contract claim is barred by the Terms’ disclaimers, waivers, and
`limitation of liability provisions, which are enforceable and prevent the relief Plaintiff seeks here.
`SAC Ex. A, § L. The Court previously found that Plaintiff “has not alleged facts showing the
`2
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`Apple Terms were substantively unconscionable.” Order at 6-7. The SAC does not claim that the
`Terms were unconscionable, nor does the SAC contain any new facts that would lead to such a
`conclusion. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff could adequately plead a breach of contract claim, the
`Terms expressly bar this action for damages.
`Having now had three opportunities to state a viable claim against Apple based in tort or
`contract across three separate complaints and multiple legal theories, Plaintiff should not be
`granted further leave to amend. The SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.
`II.
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`For purposes of this Motion, the court must accept any “well-pleaded factual allegations”
`together with the Terms that have been attached and incorporated into the SAC. See Kwan v.
`SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017); Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d
`1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010) (“On a motion to dismiss, we may consider materials incorporated into
`the complaint.”); see also Dkt. 53-1. However, the Court “need not . . . accept” allegations “that
`contradict” the Terms. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
`A.
`The Apple Media Service Terms and Conditions.
`Plaintiff’s sole claim is that Apple breached the Terms, a “contract between [him] and
`Apple” that governed his “use of Apple’s services” through which he could “buy, get, license, rent
`or subscribe to content, Apps [], and other in-app services.” SAC Ex. A at 21; id. ¶ 2 nn. 1 & 2; id.
`¶¶ 21, 59. The SAC’s recitation of the applicable Terms is incomplete, as it omits multiple
`provisions that bear on this dispute.
`Under the Terms, Plaintiff could “acquire Content on [Apple’s] Services for free or for a
`charge, either of which is referred to as a ‘Transaction,’” and each Transaction was “an electronic
`contract between you and Apple, and/or you and the entity providing the Content on our Services.”
`SAC Ex. A at 2. The Terms prohibited Plaintiff from, among other things, using the Services to
`“plan or engage in any illegal, fraudulent, or manipulative activity.” Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff also agreed
`that Apple could “monitor [his] use of the Services and Content” for compliance with the Terms,
`
`1 Pinpoint page citations to the Terms refer to Dkt. 53-1.
`3
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`id. at 3, and take action to prevent breaches of the Terms or suspected abuse of its Services by, for
`example, “refus[ing] a refund request if we find evidence of fraud, refund abuse, or other
`manipulative behavior that entitles Apple to a corresponding counterclaim.” Id. at 2; see also id. at
`14 (granting Apple “the right to take steps Apple believes are reasonably necessary or appropriate
`to enforce and/or verify compliance with any part of this Agreement”). A use of Apple’s Services
`that violates the Terms is a “material breach” of the Terms. Id. at 3.
`As Plaintiff admits, the Terms expressly permitted Apple to prevent him from using or
`accessing the Services if he failed, or if Apple suspected that he failed, to abide by the Terms. SAC
`¶ 34. In whole, the Termination Provision states:
`If you fail, or Apple suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the
`provisions of this Agreement, Apple may, without notice to you: (i) terminate
`this Agreement and/or your Apple ID, and you will remain liable for all amounts
`due under your Apple ID up to and including the date of termination; and/or (ii)
`terminate your license to the software; and/or (iii) preclude your access to the
`Services.
`Apple further reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Services (or
`any part or Content thereof) at any time with or without notice to you, and Apple
`will not be liable to you or to any third party should it exercise such rights.
`See id. Ex. A at 12 (emphases added).
`The Terms also include express waiver and limitation of liability provisions with respect to
`the Services or any breach of the Terms. Plaintiff agreed:
`By using the services . . . to indemnify and hold Apple . . . harmless with respect
`to any claims arising out of your breach of this Agreement, your use of the
`Services, or any action taken by Apple as part of its investigation of a suspected
`violation of this Agreement or as a result of its finding or a decision that a
`violation of this agreement has occurred. You agree that you shall not sue or
`recover any damages from Apple . . . as a result of its decision to remove or refuse
`to process any information or content . . . to suspend or terminate your access to
`the Services, or to take any other actions during the investigation of a suspected
`violation or as a result of Apple’s conclusion that a violation of this Agreement
`has occurred. This waiver and indemnity provision applies to all violations
`described in or contemplated by this Agreement.
`See id. at 12-13 (emphases added). Plaintiff further agreed to a Disclaimer of Warranties and
`Liability Limitation provision that provided: “use of, or inability to use, or activity in connection
`with the services is at your sole risk,” and Apple shall not be liable for damages “arising from your
`use of any of the Services or for any other claim related in any way to your use of the Services
`and/or Content.” Id.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`4
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief.
`B.
`Plaintiff alleges that “[s]ince January 8, 2015, he has used his Apple ID to buy Content and
`Services from Apple, spending $24,590.05, for use on his Apple Devices,”2 allegedly “doing so in
`a lawful manner at all times.” SAC ¶ 23. According to the SAC, “Apple terminated” Plaintiff’s
`Apple ID on or about October 29, 2020, for breaching the Terms “by engaging in chargebacks.” Id.
`¶¶ 25-26. When Apple terminated Plaintiff’s Apple ID, it allegedly refused “to provide [him]
`access to [his] apps, Services, Content and/or unspent money in [his] Apple account[].” Id. ¶ 3.
`Based on this cursory and incomplete summary of his unique experience, and nothing else,
`Plaintiff speculates “on information and belief” that Apple has “a uniform policy and practice” of
`terminating users’ access to the Services “after they lawfully engage in chargebacks.” Id. Plaintiff
`seeks to represent two nationwide classes consisting of (1) all persons who “had an Apple ID and
`who had their Apple ID terminated for engaging in chargebacks and who were deprived access to
`the unspent money in their Apple account and the purchased Content and/or Services in their
`Apple account,” and (2) all persons who “had an Apple ID which Apple terminated and who had
`unspent money in their Apple account when their Apple ID was terminated.” Id. ¶ 44.
`A “chargeback,” as Plaintiff defines it, is a “consumer protection tool that allow[s]
`consumers to get their money back for fraudulent charges or purchases that don’t live up to
`standards by submitting a dispute with their card issuer.” Id. ¶ 4 & n.4. Here, Plaintiff alleges that
`he “made multiple chargebacks” because a third-party developer refused his requests for refunds
`due to alleged problems with that developer’s app (not Apple’s Services). Id. ¶¶ 24, 26. Plaintiff
`alleges that he “contacted Apple” regarding his dispute with the third party, and “Apple advised
`him to talk to his bank/credit card company to have them chargeback the money he spent on said
`purchases.” Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff does not provide any details about his chargebacks—i.e., when they
`were made, how frequently, or their value—and therefore his self-serving characterization of these
`chargebacks as “lawful” is without the support of any well-pleaded facts. Also, Plaintiff never
`
`2 Apple does not endorse Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the sums he allegedly paid for Services and
`Content or other characterizations which do not take into account the admitted chargebacks.
`5
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`explains why he continued to make purchases from a third-party app after allegedly encountering
`repeated problems requiring multiple chargebacks. Id. n.11. One would expect that after the first or
`second poor experience, Plaintiff would not have made further purchases, but the SAC is
`intentionally vague as to his alleged need for repeated chargebacks.
`After the passage of an unspecified period of time, Apple allegedly “terminated Mr. Price
`for breaching its terms by engaging in chargebacks” on October 29, 2020.3 Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff
`alleges that during a call with an unnamed Apple representative two months later, he was told “that
`his Apple ID was terminated because he initiated chargebacks.” Id. ¶ 27. Again, Plaintiff does not
`dispute that he made the chargebacks Apple allegedly cited as the basis for terminating access to
`the Services. Instead, he disagrees with Apple’s determination that he breached the Terms because,
`according to his allegations, the Terms do not “prohibit Plaintiff and members of the Classes from
`engaging in chargebacks for apps, Services, and/or Content they purchased from and/or through
`Apple.” Id. ¶¶ 62, 65. At the same time, Plaintiff fails to cite any provision of the Terms that
`requires Apple to allow chargebacks or bars Apple from suspecting or deciding that a pattern of
`chargebacks constitutes refund abuse that violates the Terms. Still, Plaintiff asserts that due to
`Apple’s alleged breach of the Terms, he was deprived access to $24,590.05 in purchased Content
`and $7.63 in unspent funds. Id. ¶¶ 29-30.
`C.
`The Prior Dismissal Order.
`Plaintiff’s original Complaint and FAC asserted a number of tort-based claims seeking to
`challenge the enforceability of the Termination Provision. The Court dismissed the FAC on April
`6, 2022, because the FAC lacked well-pleaded facts establishing that the Termination Provision
`was unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. See generally Order. As for Plaintiff’s claims that
`the Termination Provision constituted an unenforceable liquidated damages clause, and his claims
`
`3 Apple does not admit or adopt Plaintiff’s use of the term “lawful chargeback”—whatever it may
`mean—and denies that it terminated Plaintiff’s Apple ID for engaging in chargebacks. Apple also
`notes that, in amending the SAC, Plaintiff refused to provide any of the particulars about his
`multiple chargebacks to support his assertion that they were “lawful,” let alone when he made his
`last chargeback, how much time passed before Apple allegedly terminated his Apple ID, and what
`occurred in the interim.
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`6
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`for unjust enrichment and equitable relief, the Court dismissed them with prejudice. Order at 13.
`The Court granted leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims for conversion, trespass to
`chattels, and violation of the UCL and CLRA but expressed “significant doubts” that Plaintiff
`could replead those claims “consistent with his Rule 11 obligations.” Id. Indeed, Plaintiff has
`abandoned those claims entirely in the SAC.
`III.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (CIV. L.R. 7-4(A)(3))
`Whether (1) Plaintiff fails to plead a plausible claim that Apple breached the Terms by
`“terminating” Plaintiff’s Apple ID, thereby denying Plaintiff use of or access to purchased Content
`or Services and/or retaining unspent funds in his Apple account; (2) Plaintiff’s breach of contract
`claim is barred by the Termination Provision, Disclaimer of Warranties, Limitation of Liability,
`and/or Waiver and Indemnity provisions in the Terms.
`IV.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal where a complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a
`claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`“The plausibility standard” requires allegations that allow “the court to draw the reasonable
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`678 (2009). “When faced with two possible explanations, only one of which can be true and only
`one of which results in liability, plaintiffs cannot offer allegations that are merely consistent with
`their favored explanation but are also consistent with the alternative explanation. Something more
`is needed, such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that the alternative explanation is true, in
`order to render plaintiffs’ allegations plausible.” In re Century Aluminum Co. Secs. Litig., 729 F.3d
`1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Iqbal, 556
`U.S. at 682 (a claim is not plausible and subject to dismissal where an “obvious alternative
`explanation” exists) (citing Twombly). “Mere conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted
`inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d
`1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Additionally, the Court may “draw on its experience and common
`sense” to determine whether the claim stated by the allegations is plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
`/////
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`7
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`Where a complaint has been amended, the court “does not ignore prior allegations” and
`may “consider the prior allegations as part of its ‘context-specific’ inquiry based on its judicial
`experience and common sense to assess whether the [amended pleading] plausibly suggests an
`entitlement to relief.” Stanislaus Food Products Co. v. USS-POSCO Industries, 782 F. Supp. 2d
`1059, 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Cole v. Sunnyvale, 2010 WL 532428, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010).
`Moreover, courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend “where the court has already given
`the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.” Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of
`S.F., 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
`V.
`ARGUMENT
`A claim for breach of contract requires factual allegations showing “(1) the existence of the
`contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4)
`the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” Brackett v. Am. Airlines Group, Inc., 21-cv-02681-HSG,
`2022 WL 282529, at *3 (Jan. 31, 2022) (Gilliam, J.) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, the
`SAC does not (and cannot) plausibly allege, through well-pleaded facts, the second, third, or fourth
`elements of a claim for breach of contract, and the Court should dismiss the claim with prejudice.
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any Specific Contract Term That Apple Allegedly
`Breached.
`Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against Apple fails at the threshold because the SAC
`does not identify a single provision or obligation under the Terms that Apple allegedly breached.
`Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging “‘the specific provisions in the contract creating the
`obligation the defendant is said to have breached.’” Id. (quoting Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F.
`Supp. 2d 1110, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2011)) (emphasis added). Moreover, “‘[f]acts alleging a breach,
`like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with
`specificity.’” In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig., MD 11-
`2269 TEH, 2012 WL 1123863, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) (quoting Levy v. State Farm Mut.
`Auto. Ins. Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 1, 5 (2007)).
`Here, Plaintiff alleges that “Apple materially breached its Terms with Plaintiff . . . by
`erroneously finding, or suspecting, that [he] violated its Terms because [he] engaged in
`chargebacks which are not prohibited by Apple’s Terms.” SAC ¶ 64 (emphasis added). This self-
`8
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS SAC
`
`CASE NO. 4:21-CV-02846-HSG
`EAST\191352508.3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-02846-HSG Document 56 Filed 05/31/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`serving conclusion, however, does not find support in the Terms or the well-pleaded allegations of
`the SAC. Nothing in the Terms obligates Apple to allow Plaintiff to make chargebacks, let alone
`“multiple chargebacks,” regardless of their reason, amount, or frequency. Apple therefore did not
`breach the Terms by refusing to allow Plaintiff to continue making chargebacks. Nor can Plaintiff
`predicate the alleged breach on the fact that the Terms do not expressly and affirmatively state that
`Apple can terminate or disable account access for “chargebacks” where there is no express
`obligation under the Terms prohibiting Apple from terminating Plaintiff’s Apple ID allegedly for
`that reason. See, e.g., Rankin v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 13-cv-01117-JCS, 2013 WL 3456949, at
`*14 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) (dismissing contract claim based on theory that defendant’s conduct
`“constituted a breach because there is no provision in the Terms and Conditions that permitted the
`allegedly wrongful conduct”); In re Bank of America, 2012 WL 1123863, at *4 (dismissing
`contract claim where plaintiffs failed to allege breach of a specific term and instead alleged breach
`theory based on “the absence of a term affirmatively allowing” the fees that formed the basis of the
`alleged breach); see also Miron v. Herbalife Intern., Inc., 11 F. App’x 927, 929 (2001) (to plead
`breach of an express contract, “the writing must express the obligation sued upon”).
`Courts routinely dismiss claims at the pleading stage for failure to allege an express
`contractual obligation the defendant allegedly breached. See, e.g., Young, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1117;
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig., 263 F. Supp. 3d 836, 848 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (dismissing
`contract claim where plaintiffs failed to id

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket