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 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`MATTHEW D. POWERS (S.B. # 212682)
`mpowers@omm.com
`DANIEL H. LEIGH (S.B. #310673)
`dleigh@omm.com
`ANDREW M. LEVAD (S.B. #313610)
`alevad@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone:
`(415) 984-8700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 984-8701
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CHRISTOPHER BRYAN, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC., a California corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:22-cv-00845-HSG
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`Hearing Date:
`September 1, 2022
`Time:
`2:00pm
`Judge:
`Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`Courtroom:
`Courtroom 2, 4th Floor
`
`Complaint Filed: February 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`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 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................................... 3
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 6
`IV.
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Plaintiff’s California Claims Must Be Dismissed ................................................... 7
`B.
`Plaintiff Fails To Plead The Necessary Elements Of His Fraud-Based
`Claims Under Both California and Colorado Law .................................................. 8
`1.
`No “False” Statements ................................................................................ 9
`2.
`No Actionable Omissions Under California Law ..................................... 11
`3.
`No Actionable Omissions under Colorado Law ....................................... 13
`Plaintiff Pleads No Facts To Support An “Unlawful” Or “Unfair” UCL
`Claim ..................................................................................................................... 14
`Plaintiff Cannot Seek Monetary Damages or an Injunction Under the
`CCPA .................................................................................................................... 16
`The Claims For Retrospective Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Must Be
`Dismissed Because Plaintiff Has Not Pled That He Has No Adequate
`Remedy At Law .................................................................................................... 17
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Seek Injunctive Relief .............................................. 18
`F.
`LEAVE TO AMEND ........................................................................................................ 19
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`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 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`Alpine Bank v. Hubbell,
`555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 8
`Annunziato v. eMachines, Inc.,
`402 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................................. 11
`Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.,
`785 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................... 8
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 6
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. C 09-05946 RS, 2010 WL 2486353 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2010) ...................................... 15
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
`901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................................... 6
`Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`136 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (2006) ......................................................................................... 15, 16
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 6
`Berenblat v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 08-4969 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 1460297 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) .................................... 15
`Campion v. Old Republic Home Prot. Co.,
`861 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................... 19
`Carter v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 17-CV-02156-RM-MEH, 2018 WL 3093320 (D. Colo. June 22, 2018),
`report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-CV-02156-RM-MEH, 2018 WL
`4368668 (D. Colo. July 11, 2018) ........................................................................................... 17
`Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,
`631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 18
`Collins v. eMachines, Inc.,
`202 Cal. App. 4th 249 (2011), as modified (Dec. 28, 2011) ............................................... 8, 12
`Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`113 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2003) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
`Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. California Collection Serv. Inc.,
`911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................... 20
`Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass’n,
`629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ........................................................................................... 12, 15
`Davison v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.,
`No. SACV 15-00239-CJC, 2015 WL 3970502 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) .............................. 7
`Dotson v. Europharma, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-CV-09651-AB-AGR, 2021 WL 4826611 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2021) ..................... 18
`Duttweiler v. Triumph Motorcycles,
`2015 WL 4941780 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) ........................................................................ 18
`EchoStar Satelleite, L.L.C. v. Splash Media Partners, L.P.,
`No. 07-CV-02611-PAB-BNB, 2010 WL 1380314 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2010) ........................ 10
`Francis v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
`No. 1:10-CV-00701-JLK, 2010 WL 5313540 (D. Colo. Dec. 17, 2010) ............................... 14
`Frenzel v. AliphCom,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 8
`Frezza v. Google Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW, 2013 WL 1736788 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) ............................. 8
`Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-02432-WYD-KMT, 2015 WL 4036319 (D. Colo. July 1, 2015) ........................ 17
`Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-03952-HSG, 2016 WL 454083 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) .............................. 18, 19
`Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet,
`263 P.3d 92 (Colo. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 8
`Gest v. Bradbury,
`443 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 19
`Goode v. Gaia, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-00742-DDD-KLM, 2022 WL 596292 (D. Colo. Feb. 28, 2022) ........................... 9
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................. 10
`Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina,
`199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 19
`Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.,
`891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 12
`Hoey v. Sony Elecs. Inc.,
`515 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................ 13, 15
`Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 08-5788 JF (PVT), 2009 WL 5069144 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) .................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009), aff'd, 464
`F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 16
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................. 12
`In re Clorox Consumer Litig.,
`894 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 11
`In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig.,
`529 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 8
`In re Hitachi Television Optical Block Cases,
`No. 08cv1746, 2011 WL 9403 (S.D. Cal. Jan.3, 2011) ............................................................ 8
`In re Rumsey Land Co., LLC,
`944 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................... 8, 14
`In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 20-CV-00966-AJB-DEB, 2021 WL 6062943 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021) ..................... 6, 7
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 8, 10
`In re ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. LAML1902905JAKFFMX, 2022 WL 522484 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) ........................ 18
`Johnson v. MDEA, Inc.,
`578 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (C.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................. 11
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 6, 8, 10
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................... 7
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 8
`LiMandri v. Judkins,
`52 Cal. App. 4th 326 (1997) ................................................................................................... 12
`Marolda v. Symantec Corp.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................... 6
`Martinez v. Nash Finch Co.,
`886 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012) .................................................................................... 17
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 7
`Monson v. Country Preferred Ins. Co.,
`No. 17-CV-02130-RBJ, 2018 WL 11016704 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2018) .......................... 16, 17
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`Moss v. U.S.,
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 6
`Nero v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-02717-PAB-MJW, 2012 WL 4478958 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2012 ........................ 14
`Price v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-02846-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2022) .................................................................... 16
`Princess Cruise v. Superior Court,
`179 Cal. App. 4th 36 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 8
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`No. 14-CV-05028-LHK, 2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ............................... 16
`Renfro v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.,
`25 F.4th 1293 (10th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................... 10, 11, 14
`Rocky Mountain Expl., Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP,
`420 P.3d 223 (Colo. 2018) ........................................................................................................ 8
`Rojas-Lozano v. Google, Inc.,
`159 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .............................................................................. 8, 12
`Rubenstein v. The Gap, Inc.,
`14 Cal. App. 5th 870 (2017) ............................................................................................. 10, 13
`Schroeder v. United States,
`569 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 17
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 17
`Smith v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. C 13-4361 PJH, 2014 WL 989742 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) ........................................ 16
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`\971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 17
`Stephenson v. Neutrogena Corp.,
`No. C 12-0426-PJH, 2012 WL 8527784 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2012) ....................................... 19
`Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc.,
`527 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 11
`Strumlauf v. Starbucks Corp.,
`192 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................ 18, 19
`Tasion Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.,
`No. C-13-1803 EMC, 2014 WL 1048710 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014) .................................... 17
`Terra Ins. Co. v. New York Life Inv. Mgmt. LLC,
`717 F. Supp. 2d 883 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................ 8, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Hardwicke,
`339 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Colo. 2004) .................................................................................... 10
`United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
`655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 20
`Valley Fresh Produce, Inc. v. W. Skyways, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-01450-PAB-KLM, 2019 WL 4695668 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2019) ....................... 10
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 6
`Williams v. Apple Inc.,
`2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ........................................................................ 18
`Williamson v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-CV-00158-EJD, 2014 WL 4220824 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) ............................. 16
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 16
`STATUTES
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..................................................................................................... 2
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 ..................................................................................................... 6
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 ..................................................................................................................... 6
`Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101 ............................................................................................................... 2
`Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113 ............................................................................................................. 17
`Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2) ........................................................................................................ 16
`Colo. Rev. Stat. 6-1-105(1)(u) ...................................................................................................... 14
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Andrew Cunningham, “Newest iPad mini has a subtle scrolling problem,”
`ArsTechnica (Sep. 27, 2021) ..................................................................................................... 4
`Felipe Esposito, “iPad mini 6 users complaint about LCD discoloration and
`distortion issues,” 9to5Mac (Oct. 5, 2021) ............................................................................... 4
`JC Torres, “iPad mini 6 iFixit teardown explains jelly scrolling behavior,”
`SlashGear (Sept. 29, 2021) ....................................................................................................... 4
`Malcolm Owen, “Apple dismisses iPad mini ‘jelly scroll’ issue as normal
`behavior,” Apple Insider (Sep. 28, 2021) .................................................................................. 4
`Phillip Tracey, “iPad mini 6 display problem is angering customers [Update:
`Apple says it’s normal],” Laptop Mag (Sep. 29, 2021) ............................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`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 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Samuel Axon, “iPad mini teardown sheds new light on ‘jelly scrolling’
`controversy,” ArsTechnica (Sep. 30, 2021) .............................................................................. 4
`Shujja Imran, “Wobbly Jelly Scrolling on Your iPad mini 6 Screen? Apple Says
`It’s Normal,” MakeUseOf (Oct. 7, 2021) .................................................................................. 4
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`Please take notice that on September 1, 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 Complaint (“Compl.”)
`of Plaintiff Christopher Bryan (“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,
`Apple’s Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Matthew D. Powers and all exhibits
`thereto, and all pleadings, arguments, and matters before the Court.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 8, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`/s/ Matthew D. Powers
`Matthew D. Powers
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
`Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`INTRODUCTION
`The Plaintiff in this case purports to bring claims over an alleged product “defect” that the
`Complaint itself shows not to be a defect at all. And he seeks to recover for supposed false
`statements and “concealed” facts that—again—the Complaint itself shows are neither false nor
`concealed. Here, Plaintiff Christopher Bryan asserts claims against Apple over the iPad mini 6
`because of a visual effect on LCD screens known as “jelly scrolling.” That effect, as explained in
`detail by the various sources that Plaintiff cites and incorporates into his Complaint: (1) is simply
`the way all LCD screens function, (2) is widely known by both the public and the technology
`industry, and (3) is so minute as to be imperceptible by nearly all users. Plaintiff does not—
`because he cannot—plead that “jelly scrolling” is only present on iPad mini 6 screens or that it
`only impacts Apple products. Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends that Apple should be liable for
`“failing” to disclose the existence of this effect in its marketing of the iPad mini 6. All of
`Plaintiff’s claims are faulty and must be dismissed with prejudice.
`First, Plaintiff’s attempt to assert claims under California law must be rejected. Plaintiff
`is a Colorado resident who bought his iPad mini 6 in Park Meadows, Colorado. Compl. ¶ 7. He
`did not view any advertisements in California, did not make any relevant purchases in California,
`and does not allege to have suffered any sort of harm in California. On these facts, Colorado’s
`laws—not California’s—apply to his claims, and his non-Colorado causes of action should be
`dismissed.
`Second, Plaintiff fails to plead key facts necessary to his fraud-based claims. Plaintiff’s
`claims based on misrepresentations all fail because Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that he
`relied on any actual false statements by Apple about “jelly scrolling” or the characteristics of the
`iPad mini 6. Instead, Plaintiff resorts to vague, broad characterizations of Apple’s marketing that
`are untethered to any actual statements by Apple, as well as non-actionable marketing statements
`that cannot support any misrepresentation theory. And Plaintiff’s “omission” claims fail because
`he does not and cannot plead that the alleged omissions are contrary to any statements by Apple
`or that Apple had any duty to explicitly disclose the effect—particularly since Plaintiff concedes
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`- 1 -
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`that the effect is widely known.
`Third, because Plaintiff’s fraud-based claims all fail as a matter of law, there are no
`plausible allegations of unlawful activity to support his claim under the “unlawful” prong of
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. The
`Complaint is also devoid of any plausible allegations of “unfair” conduct on Apple’s part.
`Plaintiff fails to allege any activity by Apple that is against public policy, unscrupulous or
`substantially injurious to consumers, or that causes unjustifiable harm that could not be
`reasonably avoided by consumers—that Plaintiff contends he and other purchasers were
`dissatisfied with their iPad mini 6 devices does not render Apple’s conduct “unfair.” Plaintiff
`also fails to plead facts that would give rise to a duty for Apple to “disclose” “jelly scrolling” on
`the iPad mini 6; since Apple was under no duty to address “jelly scrolling,” “failing” to “disclose”
`the effect was not “unfair” as a matter of law.
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages and injunctive relief under Colorado’s
`Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101, et seq. (“CCPA”), must be dismissed
`because those remedies are simply not available under the statute. The CCPA expressly exempts
`classes from monetary recovery, and injunctive relief is not available to private plaintiffs.
`Fifth, Plaintiff’s equitable claims must be dismissed because Plaintiff has and, in fact,
`presently seeks, what he contends is an adequate remedy at law. Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover
`in equity the exact monetary amount that he seeks in damages. Compl. ¶ 118, 175–76. In this
`circumstance, courts hold that plaintiffs’ remedies at law are adequate, and retroactive equitable
`relief is thus unavailable. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims for retrospective equitable relief must
`be dismissed.
`Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations do not allow him to seek injunctive relief. He does not and
`cannot allege that he is under threat of repetition of his alleged “injury.” Instead, he concedes that
`he now has actual knowledge of the “jelly scroll” effect and cannot be re-induced to purchase
`another iPad mini 6 by Apple’s allegedly fraudulent marketing.
`In short, Plaintiff’s claims fail for multiple reasons and should be rejected on the
`pleadings.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`The core of Plaintiff’s claims is his allegation that the LCD displays of Apple’s iPad mini
`6 are “prone” to “jelly scrolling” when held in a vertical or “portrait” orientation. Compl. ¶ 1,
`27.1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he encountered the “jelly scroll” effect on an iPad mini 6 that
`he bought sometime “[i]n or around September 2021,” and that he reviewed and relied on some
`portion of the iPad mini 6’s labeling, packaging, and marketing materials, and statements by
`Apple on Apple’s website before his purchase. Id. ¶ 7. And although he pleads that “jelly
`scrolling” on his iPad mini 6 caused him some unspecified “economic injuries,” id. ¶ 8, he
`provides virtually no details about his personal experience—although his complaint is more than
`40 pages, he devotes only one paragraph to his own experience with the iPad mini 6. Id. ¶ 8.
`Instead, Plaintiff primarily relies on third-party sources, incorporated into the Complaint
`by reference, to describe the so-called “jelly scroll” effect. See id. ¶¶ 1–5, 16–18, 27–28, 74, 77–
`79. But the sources Plaintiff cites do not support the allegations for which Plaintiff cites them.
`Indeed, the iFixit “teardown” video that Plaintiff cites and pastes screen-captured images from
`throughout the Complaint reveals that slow-motion footage is required to render “jelly scrolling”
`perceivable. See id. ¶¶ 3, 5, 27, 71, 78 & nn.5, 25, 40. Plaintiff’s other sources follow suit,
`describing the effect as normal LCD screen behavior that is barely noticeable, generally harmless,
`and can be eliminated altogether by holding the iPad in a “landscape” orientation:
`
`
`• “Jelly scrolling is normal LCD behavior, coming as a result of the way these
`types of displays refresh. LCDs refresh line by line, so it’s normal for the lines at
`the top of the display to refresh at a different rate than the lines at the bottom. . . .
`The issue is subtle, but most noticeable when scrolling relatively slowly up and
`down a webpage or document—the left side of the screen follows the right side by
`just a fraction of a second, which may make paragraphs of text appear wobbly to
`the attentive eye. . . . The jelly scrolling effect is not very noticeable in normal
`usage . . . This is a very small issue that is barely noticeable to many users. In
`general, the iPad mini 6 is an excellent all-rounder device for those looking for a
`powerful machine in a smaller size. Don’t let this issue put you off buying one.”
`Declaration Of Matthew D. Powers In Support Of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Request
`For Judicial Notice And Incorporation By Reference (“Powers Decl.”) Ex. A
`(Shujja Imran, “Wobbly Jelly Scrolling on Your iPad mini 6 Screen? Apple Says
`
`1 As Plaintiff acknowledges, this effect, where lines on one side of the LCD display refresh at a
`slightly different rate from lines on the other side of the screen, vanishes completely when the
`iPad mini 6 is held in the horizontal or “landscape” orientation. Id. ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`& MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPPORT
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00845-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00845-HSG Document 19 Filed 04/08/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`It’s Normal,” MakeUseOf (Oct. 7, 2021)), cited and quoted at Compl. ¶ 1 & n.2;
`• “The version observed in the iPad mini generally manifests when the tablet is held
`in a portrait orientation . . . . However, the problem is rarely noticeable, meaning
`most users won’t necessarily observe it without looking specifically for the
`issue.” Powers Decl. Ex. B (Malcolm Owen, “Apple dismisses iPad mini ‘jelly
`scroll’ issue as normal behavior,” Apple Insider (Sep. 28, 2021)), cited at id. ¶ 4 &
`n.4;
`• “[S]ome iPad mini users noticed a subtle, stagger-like disconnect between the right
`and left sides of the screen when scrolling through content. Some people see it
`right away, others have to have it pointed out to them, and others still don’t notice
`even when told. . . . All that is to say that while the effect may be more noticeable
`on one device than another, it is common in any OLED or LCD display, iPad or
`otherwise.” Powers Decl. Ex. C (Samuel Axon, “iPad mini teardown sheds new
`light on ‘jelly scrolling’ controversy,” ArsTechnica (Sep. 30, 2021)), cited and
`quoted at id. ¶ 27 & n.24;
`• “[T]he ‘bug’ seemingly disappears in a landscape orientation. . . .”
`Powers Decl. Ex. D (JC Torres, “iPad mini 6 iFixit teardown explains jelly
`scrolling behavior,” SlashGear (Sept. 29, 2021)), cited and quoted at id. ¶ 27 &
`n.25;
`• “Some users have reported not being able to notice the problem in landscape mode
`at all.” Powers Decl. Ex. E (Andrew Cunningham, “Newest iPad mini has a subtle
`scrolling problem,” ArsTechnica (Sep. 27, 2021)), cited and quoted at id. ¶¶ 28 &
`n.27, 79 & n.41;
`• “At least so far, this doesn’t seem to be a widespread hardware problem. A few
`other users on Reddit have managed to replicate the distortion on the iPad mini 6
`LCD, while others say they haven’t experienced this problem. Users affected can
`take their iPad mini to an Apple Store or Repair Center to ask for a replacement
`unit.” Powers Decl. Ex. F (Felipe Esposito, “iPad mini 6 u