Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIN M. BOSMAN (CA SBN 204987)
`EBosman@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`12531 High Bluff Drive Suite 100
`San Diego, California 92130-2040
`Telephone: 858.720.5100
`Facsimile: 858.720.5125
`
`PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607)
`PPreovolos@mofo.com
`ALEXIS A. AMEZCUA (CA SBN 247507)
`AAmezcua@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105-2482
`Telephone: 415.268.7000
`Facsimile: 415.268.7522
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CHRIS SMITH, CHERYL SMITH, KAREN
`SMITHSON, JASON ROUSH, COREY
`POMROY, FRANK ORTEGA, LESLIE WHITE,
`ALBERTO CORNEA, MICHELLE ROGERS,
`JOSHUA BAYS, DEBORAH CLASS and
`AMBER JONES, individually and on behalf of all
`other similarly situated individuals,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`Date: November 10, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Dept.: Courtroom 2 – 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam , Jr.
`Am. Compl. Filed: March 28, 2022
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 10, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
`as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in Courtroom 2, in the
`United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division, 1301 Clay Street,
`Oakland, CA 94612, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby does move to dismiss
`Plaintiffs Chris Smith, Cheryl Smith, Karen Smithson, Jason Roush, Corey Pomroy, Frank
`Ortega, Leslie White, Alberto Cornea, Michelle Rogers, Joshua Bays, Deborah Class, and Amber
`Jones’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
`for lack of standing and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities in support thereof, the Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion to
`Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint filed concurrently herewith, the Declaration of
`Alexis A. Amezcua in Support of the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
`filed concurrently herewith, all other pleadings and papers on file herewith, and such other
`argument and evidence as may be presented to the court.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Alexis A. Amezcua
`ALEXIS A. AMEZCUA
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 33
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 
`A.
`Factual Background ................................................................................................ 2 
`B.
`Apple’s One-Year Limited Warranty...................................................................... 3 
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4 
`A.
`California Law Does Not Apply to the Non-California Plaintiffs’ Claims ............ 4 
`B.
`All of Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Claims Fail ............................................................. 5 
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims for Equitable Relief Fail Under Sonner ........ 6 
`2.
`Plaintiffs’ Omissions Claims Fail ............................................................... 7 
`a.
`All of Plaintiffs’ Omissions Claims Fail Because Plaintiffs
`Have Not Adequately Alleged Knowledge ..................................... 8 
`The Omissions Claims of Named Plaintiffs Who
`Experienced No Issue During the Warranty Period Fail ............... 14 
`Plaintiff Rogers’s and Smithson’s Claims Are Also Time-Barred ........... 16 
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged a Violation of the Consumer Fraud
`Statutes of Michigan, New York, or Texas ............................................... 17 
`Plaintiffs’ Warranty Claims All Fail ..................................................................... 20 
`1.
`Apple’s Limited Warranty Disclaims Implied Warranties ....................... 21 
`2.
`The FAC Fails to Plausibly Allege That a Defect Is Substantially
`Certain to Manifest .................................................................................... 22 
`Any Implied Warranty Not Disclaimed Is Limited to One Year .............. 22 
`Plaintiffs Do Not State an Actionable Song-Beverly Claim ..................... 23 
`a.
`Plaintiffs Do Not Allege That the Purported Defect Is
`Substantially Certain to Manifest .................................................. 23 
`All But One Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Claims Are Time-
`Barred ............................................................................................ 24 
`Plaintiffs Do Not State an Actionable MMWA Claim ............................. 24 
`a.
`Plaintiffs’ MMWA Claim Fails With Their Predicate
`Warranty Claims ........................................................................... 24 
`The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’
`MMWA Claim .............................................................................. 25 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25 
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`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
`
`C.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ......................................................................................10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ..........................................................................................................3 n.4, 4
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`Beyer v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 18-cv-02006-EMC, 2019 WL 935135 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019) .....................................16
`
`BMA LLC v. HDR Glob. Trading Ltd.,
`No. 20-cv-03345-WHO, 2021 WL 949371 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) ............................21 n.20
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ................................................................................................................6
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................4, 24
`
`Davidson v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-04942-LHK, 2017 WL 976048 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) .....................22 n.21, 24
`
`Deras v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-05452-JST, 2018 WL 2267448 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) .......................................8
`
`Duncan v. Nissan,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D. Mass. 2018) .......................................................................................20
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ..............................................................................23 n.22
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`950 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................14
`
`Enea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 18-cv-02792-HSG, 2019 WL 402315 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)
`(Gilliam, J.) ...............................................................................................................................12
`
`Fisher v. Honda N. Am., Inc.,
`No. LA CV13–09285 JAK(PLAx), 2014 WL 2808188
`(C.D. Cal. June 12, 2014) ..................................................................................................12 n.15
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................25
`
`Franklin v. Apple,
`No. 4:21-CV-354-ALM, 2021 WL 4989952 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2021) ............................19, 20
`
`Garcia De León v. N.Y. Univ.,
`No. 21 Civ 05005 (CM), 2022 WL 179812 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2022) .....................................18
`
`Glass v. S. Wrecker Sales, 990 F. Supp. 1344 (M.D. Ala. 1998),
`aff’d, 163 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................8 n.10
`
`Goldstein v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................25
`
`Gordon v. Sig Sauer, Inc.,
`No. H-19-585, 2020 WL 6118466 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2020) ............................................8 n.10
`
`Granfield v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`No. C 11-05403 JW, 2012 WL 2847575 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) ...........................................5
`
`Grodzitsky v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 2:12-cv-1142-SVW-PLA, 2013 WL 690822 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) ...................12 n.15
`
`Hauck v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-00447-LHK, 2018 WL 5729234 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) ..................................13
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................................14 n.18
`
`In re Apple iPhone 3G Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`859 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ....................................................................................24
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`No. 19-cv-04286-BLF, 2021 WL 2711747 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021) ...................................5 n.8
`
`In re Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 19-md-02918-MMC, 2021 WL 4306018 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2021) ................................17
`
`In re Juul Labs, Inc., Antitrust Litig.,
`555 F. Supp. 3d 932 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................................................................................7
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD, 2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ..........................6, 7 n.9
`
`In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection
`HDTV Television Litig.,
`758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................9, 11 n.14, 23
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`In re ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. LA ML19-02905 JAK (FFMx), 2022 WL 522484 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) ................7 n.9
`
`Johnson v. Shasta Corp.,
`No. 20-cv-00703-HSG (RMI), 2022 WL 789018 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2022)
`(Gilliam, J.) ”),
`report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 783969
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2022) .....................................................................................................3 n.4
`
`Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00711-HSG, 2016 WL 5210935 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016)
`(Gilliam, J.) ...............................................................................................................................16
`
`Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo, LLC,
`No. 19-CV-1498 TWR (KSC), 2021 WL 5549226 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021) .........................12
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-07287-HSG, 2019 WL 652867 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019)
`(Gilliam, J.) ...........................................................................................................................5, 12
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-07287-HSG, 2020 WL 3961975 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2020)
`(Gilliam, J.) ...............................................................................................................................24
`
`Marcus v. Apple Inc.,
`No. C 14-03824 WHA, 2015 WL 1743381 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015) ....................................19
`
`Maya v. Centex Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Minkler v. Apple, Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 810 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................22
`
`Ocampo v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-05857-EJD, 2022 WL 767614
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2022) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Papasan v. Dometic Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-02117-HSG, 2017 WL 4865602 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2017)
`(Gilliam, J.) .............................................................................................................4, 16, 25 n.23
`
`Potter v. Chevron Prods. Co.,
`No. 17-cv-06689-PJH, 2018 WL 4053448 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018) ......................................5
`
`Priano-Keyser v. Apple, Inc.,
`2:19-cv-09162-KM-MAH (D.N.J. 2019) ............................................................................8 n.11
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Price v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-02846-HSG, 2022 WL 1032472 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2022)
`(Gilliam, J.) .................................................................................................................................6
`
`Sciacca v. Apple, Inc.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ..............................................................................13 n.16
`
`Sims v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.,
`No. SACV 13-1791 AG (DFMx), 2014 WL 12558249
`(C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) .........................................................................................................22
`
`Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
`720 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 1999) .....................................................................................................19
`
`Smith v. Ford Motor Co.,
`749 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010),
`aff’d, 462 F. App’x 660 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................14
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020). ......................................................................................................6
`
`Sponchiado v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-07533-HSG, 2019 WL 6117482 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019)
`(Gilliam, J.) .................................................................................................................................5
`
`Storey v. Attends Healthcare Prods., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-13577, 2016 WL 3125210 (E.D. Mich. June 3, 2016) ...........................................17
`
`Szep v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`491 F. Supp. 3d 280 (N.D. Ohio 2020) ...............................................................................8 n.10
`
`Tabak v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-02455-JST, 2020 WL 9066153 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020) ........................21, 22 n.21
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ....................................................................................14
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-03122-EJD, 2021 WL 1197494 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) ...........................22, 23
`
`Thompson v. California,
`No. 18-cv-07532-SK, 2019 WL 2331865 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019),
`report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2329280
`(N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) .................................................................................................21 n.20
`
`Turk v. Rubbermaid Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-270 (KMK), 2022 WL 836894 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2022) ....................................18
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`Victorino v. FCA US LLC, No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB),
`2018 WL 1083395 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018) .............................................................12, 13 n.16
`
`Watkins v. MGA Ent., Inc.,
`550 F. Supp. 3d 815 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ..................................................................................5 n.8
`
`Webb v. UnumProvident Corp.,
`507 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Tex. 2005) ...............................................................................19, 20
`
`Williams v. Tesla, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-08208-HSG, 2021 WL 2531177 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021)
`(Gilliam, J.) .............................................................................................................7, 24, 25 n.23
`
`Williams v. Tesla,
`No. 20-cv-08208-HSG, 2022 WL 899847 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022)
`(Gilliam, J.) ............................................................................................... 10, 12, 13 nn.16 & 17
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie,
`819 F.3d. 170 (5th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................20
`
`Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie,
`No. 3:13-CV-4841-L, 2015 WL 1822877 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2015) ......................................19
`
`Zottola v. Eisai Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-02600 (PMH), 2021 WL 4460563 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021) ........................8 n.10
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) ..................................................................................................................24, 25
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1761 .................................................................................................................5 n.8
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) .........................................................................................................16
`
`Cal. Com. Code
`§ 2316 ..................................................................................................................................21, 23
`§ 2725 ........................................................................................................................................24
`
`Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j) .....................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Like the original Class Action Complaint (“CAC”), the FAC purports to allege fraudulent
`omission and warranty claims premised on an allegation that the First Generation Apple Watch,
`as well as Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE, are defective because there is insufficient
`room within the enclosure of each of these Watch models for the battery to expand. Plaintiffs
`claim that, as a result, the screens on these Watches detach, shatter, and/or crack. But, despite the
`opportunity to amend, Plaintiffs fail to connect the alleged “defect” to the alleged issues they
`experienced. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ claim that the Watch is “defective” is meritless, as their own
`allegations demonstrate. Most of the named Plaintiffs concede that they used their Watch well
`past the warranty period—many of them for years—without experiencing any issue whatsoever.
`Notably, the FAC explicitly abandons any attempt to assert consumer fraud claims based on
`alleged affirmative misrepresentations; Plaintiffs’ effort to resuscitate their omissions claims fares
`no better. Plaintiffs’ warranty-based claims fail for similar reasons and on multiple grounds. The
`FAC must be dismissed in its entirety.
`Plaintiffs’ omissions-based fraud claims fail for multiple reasons, but most fundamentally,
`because Plaintiffs do not and cannot plead that Apple had knowledge of the purported defect.
`Plaintiffs’ attempts to do so rely on allegations untethered from the actual, specific defect they
`purport to allege. Further, the omissions claims raised by seven named Plaintiffs—Chris and
`Cheryl Smith, Smithson, Roush, Bays, Class, and Jones—must be dismissed because they
`concede they had no issue with their Watches within the warranty period. Consumer protection
`claims that arise outside the warranty period are barred unless the plaintiff adequately alleges an
`unreasonable safety hazard; Plaintiffs here fail to do so. Finally, Ninth Circuit law requires that
`Plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims be dismissed to the extent they seek equitable relief—and
`their UCL claims dismissed in their entirety—because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law.
`Plaintiffs’ warranty-based claims also fail on multiple grounds. Plaintiffs allege breach of
`implied, not express, warranties, but Apple’s disclaimer of implied warranties has been repeatedly
`upheld by courts in this district. Further, Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege, as required, that each
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`Watch model was substantially certain to fail within its useful life. To the contrary, the FAC
`concedes that many Plaintiffs used their Watch for years, the majority well past the warranty
`period, without issue. For these and a host of other reasons, all of Plaintiffs’ claims must be
`dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Factual Background
`
`Plaintiffs filed the CAC on December 9, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On February 21, 2022,
`Apple moved to dismiss the CAC in its entirety. (ECF No. 24.) Rather than oppose Apple’s
`motion, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, which added seven named plaintiffs, three subclasses, and three
`claims.1 (ECF No. 31.) The FAC asserts nine causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide
`class of purchasers, a nationwide internet subclass, and state-specific subclasses in Alabama,
`California, New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.2
`Plaintiffs allege that various Watch models—First Generation, Series 1 through Series 6,
`and Series SE—are defective because they have insufficient room for the battery to expand,
`leading to the Watch screen detaching or cracking.3 (FAC ¶¶ 1-3.) None of the named Plaintiffs
`purchased a Series 1, 4, or 5 Watch. (See id. ¶¶ 24-35.) Plaintiff Chris Smith did not purchase a
`Watch at all; he received one as a gift from his mother, Plaintiff Cheryl Smith. (Id. ¶ 24.)
`
`
`1 The FAC added seven new Plaintiffs, Frank Ortega, Leslie White, Alberto Cornea,
`Michelle Rogers, Joshua Bays, Deborah Class, and Amber Jones, in addition to the original five
`Plaintiffs, Chris Smith, Cheryl Smith, Karen Smithson, Jason Roush, and Corey Pomroy. (FAC
`¶¶ 24-35.) It also added claims under consumer protection statutes in New York, Michigan, and
`Texas, and a subclass for each of these states. (Id. ¶¶ 230, 331-62.)
`2 The FAC claims violations of: (1) California Unlawful Competition Law (“UCL”); (2)
`California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (3) Fraud by Omission; (4) Song-Beverly
`Consumer Warranty Act; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty; (6) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
`(“MMWA”); (7) New York General Business Law (“N.Y. GBL”) § 349; (8) Michigan Consumer
`Protection Act (“MCPA”); and (9) Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act
`(“DTPCPA”). (Id. ¶¶ 241-362.) Plaintiffs dropped claims on behalf of a Maryland subclass in
`the FAC. (See id. ¶ 230.)
`3 Each model encompasses multiple design variations, resulting in an even higher number
`of distinct Watch models with significant design differences, including varying sizes (38mm,
`40mm, 42mm, or 44mm), case material (aluminum, ceramic, or stainless-steel), and screen
`material (Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal). (FAC ¶¶ 40, 42-43, 45-46, 48, 50, 52.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`Notably, most of the Plaintiffs used their Watches for years beyond Apple’s one-year warranty
`period without experiencing any issues. In fact, three Plaintiffs (Smithson, Class, and Jones) used
`their Watches for five years without experiencing the alleged defect—and Plaintiff Smithson has
`still never had an issue. (See id. ¶¶ 144-50, 213-17, 221-25.) Plaintiff Chris Smith used the
`Watch without issue for nearly three years, and Plaintiff Roush used the Watch for nearly four
`years, before claiming to have experienced an issue with it. (See id. ¶¶ 135-39, 151-55.) Of the
`Plaintiffs who allege an issue within the one-year warranty period (Pomroy, Ortega, White,
`Cornea, Rogers), only two contacted Apple (Pomroy and Cornea), and they do not allege with
`any specificity when they claimed an issue under the warranty.4 (Id. ¶¶ 161, 165-66, 171, 175,
`179, 182, 186, 190-91, 196, 200.)
`
`B.
`Apple’s One-Year Limited Warranty
`Apple provides a One-Year Limited Warranty for all Watch purchasers, which Plaintiffs
`selectively quote in the FAC.5 (FAC ¶¶ 107-08.) Apple’s Limited Warranty warrants “against
`defects in materials and workmanship when used normally in accordance with Apple’s published
`guidelines” for a period of one year after purchase. (Id. ¶ 108.) Plaintiffs’ claims are not
`premised on a breach of this Limited Warranty, but rather an alleged breach of the implied
`warranty of merchantability. (Id. ¶ 303.) Yet Apple’s Limited Warranty expressly and
`conspicuously disclaims all statutory and implied warranties—including the implied warranty of
`merchantability. (Declaration of Alexis A. Amezcua in Support of Apple’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`
`4 Moreover, Plaintiff Cornea inexplicably alleges that he purchased his Watch both in
`2019 and in 2020. (FAC ¶¶ 31, 186.) He alleges to have experienced an issue with his Watch in
`2021, which he claims was less than one year after his purchase. (Id. ¶ 190.) Apple is unable to
`determine whether Plaintiff Cornea experienced the alleged defect within the one-year warranty
`period due to the inconsistencies in his pleading, and the lack of specificity when he purchased
`and experienced the alleged defect. (See id. ¶¶ 31, 186, 190.) The Court need not accept
`Plaintiffs’ inconsistent allegations as true because they are not “well-pleaded.” See Ashcroft v.
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); Johnson v. Shasta Corp., No. 20-cv-00703-HSG (RMI), 2022
`WL 789018, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2022) (Gilliam, J.) (“allegation is not ‘well-pleaded’ if is
`contradicted by other evidence put forth by the plaintiff”), report and recommendation adopted,
`2022 WL 783969 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2022).
`5 The duration of the Limited Warranty is two years for the Hermès and Edition Watches
`and one year for all other Watches. (FAC ¶ 107.) Given that none of the named Plaintiffs
`purchased an Hermès or Edition Watch, the applicable warranty period is one year. (See id.
`¶¶ 135, 144, 151, 161, 171, 179, 186, 196, 205, 213, 221.)
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“Amezcua Decl.”) Exs. A-E.)6
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6) if it does not articulate “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); Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler
`Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008). The complaint must allege facts that, when taken as
`true, raise more than a speculative right to relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A pleading that
`offers only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`action” will be subject to dismissal. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).
`“Lack of Article III standing requires dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).” Papasan v. Dometic Corp., No. 16-cv-02117-
`HSG, 2017 WL 4865602, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2017) (Gilliam, J.) (quoting Maya v. Centex
`Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011)).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`California Law Does Not Apply to the Non-California Plaintiffs’
`Claims
`The named Plaintiffs who did not purchase a Watch in California cannot bring claims
`under California law. This argument remains unchanged in light of the FAC, as non-California
`Plaintiffs still purport to bring omissions claims under California common law and California
`statutes—the UCL and CLRA—on behalf of the putative nationwide class, as well as implied
`warranty claims under California law. (FAC ¶¶ 242, 260, 275, 302.) Of the twelve named
`Plaintiffs, ten reside outside of California, seven admit they purchased their Watches outside of
`California, and one admits that he purchased his Watch online from AT&T and had it shipped to
`Maryland.7 None of the non-California Plaintiffs claim to have seen advertisements related to the
`
`6 As set forth in the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, the Court may consider
`the Amezcua Decl. exhibits under the doctrines of incorporation by reference and judicial notice.
`7 Plaintiffs Chris and Cheryl Smith are residents of Alabama; Cheryl Smith purchased the
`Watch in Alabama. (FAC ¶¶ 24-25.) Plaintiff Roush is a resident of and purchased his Watch in
`Ohio. (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff Pomroy is a resident of Maryland, purchased his Watch online from
`AT&T, and had it shipped to Maryland. (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff White is a resident of and purchased
`her Watch in New York. (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff Cornea is a resident of and purchased his Watch in
`New York. (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff Bays is a resident of and purchased his Watch in Michigan. (Id.
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC
`CASE NO. 4:21-cv-09527 HSG
`
`sf-4786466
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 41 Filed 04/27/22 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23