`
`
`
`
`
`
`PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (SBN 87607)
`PPreovolos@mofo.com
`MARGARET E. MAYO (SBN 259685)
`MMayo@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105-2482
`Telephone: (415) 268-7000
`Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
`
`PURVI G. PATEL (SBN 270702)
`PPatel@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
`Telephone: (213) 892-5200
`Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: MACBOOK KEYBOARD
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-02813-EJD-VKD
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date:
`October 24, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Ctrm:
`4 – 5th Floor
`
`Am. Consol. Compl. Filed: May 13, 2019
`
`
`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’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`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 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 24, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable
`Edward J. Davila, in Courtroom 4, Fifth Floor, of the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California in the San Jose Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose,
`California 95113, Defendant Apple Inc. will, and hereby does, move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
`Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
`This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),
`and is made on the grounds that (i) Plaintiffs fail to state facts alleging injury or standing as
`required by Article III of the United States Constitution because Plaintiffs’ claims are moot and
`(ii) Plaintiffs’ claim for damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
`Plaintiffs Zixuan Rao and Joseph Baruch’s claims under the California Song-Beverly Consumer
`Warranty Act are moot because Apple has provided a complete remedy.
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and the Declaration of
`Purvi G. Patel, the papers and records on file in this action, and such other written and oral
`argument as may be presented to the Court.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Purvi G. Patel
` Purvi G. Patel
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims .................................................................................................... 3
`B.
`The Keyboard Service Program .............................................................................. 4
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Injury or Standing Because Their Claims Are
`Moot. ....................................................................................................................... 5
`Plaintiffs’ CLRA and Song-Beverly Claims Must Also Be Dismissed
`Under Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................ 8
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claim for Damages Is Barred ......................................... 8
`2.
`Plaintiff Rao and Baruch’s Song-Beverly Claim Has Been Mooted
`by the Keyboard Service Program .............................................................. 9
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 4 of 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Agam v. Gavra,
`236 Cal. App. 4th 91 (2015) ...............................................................................................10 n.6
`
`Arthur v. Louis Vuitton N. Am. Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-4731-AHM, 2010 WL 11463276 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2010) ..........................9, 10 n.6
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................5
`
`Cheng v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`No. CV 12-09262 GAF, 2013 WL 3940815 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) .....................................6
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Hadley v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`No. 13-13665, 2014 WL 988962 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2014), aff’d, 624 F.
`App’x 374 (6th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Hamilton v. General Mills, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-cv-382-MC, 2016 WL 6542840 (D. Or. Nov. 2, 2016) ...............................................7
`
`In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90480 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31,
`2010), aff’d, 464 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................4
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`No. 18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1979915 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2019) ...................................5, 6
`
`In re Apple Processor Litig.,
`366 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ......................................................................................6
`
`In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 377 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ..................................................................................................8
`
`In re McNeil Consumer Healthcare Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 254 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ......................................................................................7, 8
`
`Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
`511 U.S. 375 (1994) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`ii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 5 of 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................................5
`
`Seaboard Music Co. v. Germano,
`24 Cal. App. 3d 618 (1972) .................................................................................................10 n.6
`
`Tosh-Surryhne v. Abbott Labs. Inc.,
`No. CIV S-10-2603 KJM-EFB, 2011 WL 4500880 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) ........................6
`
`Vavak v. Abbott Labs., Inc.,
`No. SACV 10-1995 JVS (RZx), 2011 WL 10550065 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2011) ..................6, 7
`
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Wolfe v. Strankman,
`392 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. .....................................................................................3 n.2
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1750, et seq. .......................................................................................................................3 n.2
`§ 1770(a) .....................................................................................................................................8
`§ 1782 ..................................................................................................................................3, 8, 9
`§ 1784 ..........................................................................................................................................8
`§ 1792, et seq. .......................................................................................................................3 n.2
`§ 1793.2(d) ................................................................................................................................10
`§ 1794(b) ...............................................................................................................................3, 10
`
`Cal. Com. Code
`§ 2714 ........................................................................................................................................10
`§ 2715 ........................................................................................................................................10
`
`Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. .........................................................................................................3 n.2
`
`815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 505/1, et seq. ............................................................................................3 n.2
`
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq. .........................................................................................3 n.2
`
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq. ..................................................................................................3 n.2
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ..........................................................................................................3 n.2
`
`Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq. ........................................................................................3 n.2
`
`
`
`
`iii
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf- 4030121
`
`
`
`
`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 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 6 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`12(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................................2, 4
`12(b)(6) ...............................................................................................................................3, 5, 8
`
`U.S. Const. Art. III ................................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`sf- 4030121
`
`
`
`
`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 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`This motion raises the following issues:
`Standing: Whether Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because they have
`1.
`failed to allege injury or Article III or prudential standing.
`CLRA: Whether Plaintiffs’ claim for damages under the California Consumers
`2.
`Legal Remedies Act should be dismissed because Apple has offered an appropriate cure, thereby
`mooting and barring this claim.
`Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: Whether Plaintiffs Zixuan Rao and
`3.
`Joseph Baruch’s claim under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is moot
`because Apple has provided the exact remedy required by the statute.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 8 of 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
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs cannot avoid the fact that Apple affirmatively initiated a Keyboard Service
`Program that moots their claims and eliminates their ability to establish injury or standing. In its
`order granting in part Defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ prior complaint, the
`Court noted that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts about the Keyboard Service Program. The
`Court gave Plaintiffs leave to amend their defective Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Song-
`Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims. Rather than cure the identified deficiencies, however,
`Plaintiffs’ prolix amended complaint only highlights Plaintiffs’ lack of injury and inability to
`maintain any of their claims in light of the Keyboard Service Program. Plaintiffs here claim that
`the Apple-designed butterfly keyboard contained in certain MacBook, MacBook Pro, and
`MacBook Air notebooks is defective. Apple vigorously denies Plaintiffs’ claims, but the Court
`need not reach the issue, because those claims are moot and must be dismissed.
`This Court, in ruling on Apple’s motion to dismiss, granted judicial notice of the
`Keyboard Service Program. (ECF No. 110 at 14.) As the Court recognized, under the Program,
`Apple will provide free repair service (and refunds for past repairs) for the owners of a small
`percentage of MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air notebooks whose “butterfly” keyboards
`experience the behaviors Plaintiffs allege. (Id.) The Program therefore addresses and eliminates
`Plaintiffs’ claims.
`Courts recognize that where a repair program addresses and remediates an alleged defect,
`plaintiffs’ claims are moot and they no longer have injury or standing to sue. Plaintiffs attempt to
`avoid that outcome by alleging, based on various online postings, that the repairs are not
`effective. Plaintiffs are wrong. Critically, not one Plaintiff alleges he has attempted to obtain
`a repair or refund under the Program. As numerous courts have recognized, Plaintiffs may
`not preserve a claim of injury by declining to avail themselves of a complete and cost-free cure.
`Nor may Plaintiffs avoid mootness by pointing to supposed issues experienced by others.
`Plaintiffs’ claims thus must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1).
`Even apart from their lack of standing, Plaintiffs’ CLRA and Song-Beverly claims must
`
`
`
`
`2
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 9 of 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
`
`once again be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). As the Court recognized in granting Apple’s prior
`motion to dismiss these claims, these statutes bar Plaintiffs’ claims where Apple has offered a
`free repair. The CLRA bars an action for damages where the defendant has made a reasonable
`effort to give notice to affected consumers that it will provide a repair, replacement, or other
`remedy “upon . . . request.” Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1782(b), (c) (emphasis added). Thus, the bar
`expressly applies regardless of whether or not Plaintiffs “request” the relief available under the
`Program. Similarly, Plaintiffs Zixuan Rao and Joseph Baruch’s Song-Beverly claim is moot
`because the Program provides the exact remedy required by the statute—repair or the cost of
`repair—where, as here, Plaintiffs accepted the goods at issue. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(b)(2).
`These claims must be dismissed, this time with prejudice.
`II.
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims
`Plaintiffs all purchased 2016 or 2017 MacBook or MacBook Pro models with “butterfly”
`keyboards. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 24, 30, 38, 45, 53, 59, 67, 77, 85, 93, ECF No. 117.)1
`Plaintiffs allege there is a defect in the keyboards in model year 2015 or later MacBook, 2016 or
`later MacBook Pro, and 2018 MacBook Air notebooks that causes them to fail when dust or
`debris accumulates under or around a key. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiffs assert ten causes of action
`under the laws of California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington
`on behalf of a putative nationwide class and various putative state-specific subclasses.2
`
`
`1 There are nine remaining named Plaintiffs: Kyle Barbaro, Joseph Baruch, Steve Eakin,
`Lorenzo Ferguson, Benjamin Gulker, Michael Hopkins, Adam Lee, Kevin Melkowski, and
`Zixuan Rao.
`2 Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) violation of the Song-
`Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1792, et seq.; (5) violation of the Washington
`Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq. (“WCPA”); (6) violation of the
`Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”);
`(7) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp.
`Stat. § 505/1, et seq. (“ICFA”); (8) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat.
`Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq. (“NJCFA”); (9) violation of New York General Business Law § 349, N.Y.
`Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (“NYGBL”); and (10) violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act,
`Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq. (“MCPA”).
`
`
`
`
`3
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 10 of 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
`
`B.
`The Keyboard Service Program
`On June 22, 2018, Apple announced the Keyboard Service Program for MacBook and
`MacBook Pro. (Declaration of Purvi G. Patel (“Patel Decl.”), Ex. A.) On May 21, 2019, Apple
`expanded the program to include the 2018 MacBook Air and the 2018 and 2019 MacBook Pro.3
`(Id., Ex. B.) The Program covers eligible MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air models for
`four years after the first retail sale of the unit and addresses the same behaviors Plaintiffs allege
`experiencing: letters or characters repeating unexpectedly, letters or characters not appearing, or
`keys feeling “sticky,” or not responding in a consistent manner. (Id., Exs. A, B.) As noted in the
`Program description, Apple has determined that only a small percentage of the keyboards in
`certain MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air models may experience these behaviors. (Id.)
`Under the Program, Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider will service eligible
`MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air notebooks, free of charge. (Id.) The type of service is
`determined after the keyboard is examined, and may include replacement of one or more keys or
`the whole keyboard. (Id.) In addition, owners who believe their MacBook, MacBook Pro, or
`MacBook Air notebooks exhibited the behaviors identified in the Program and previously paid to
`have their keyboard repaired may also be eligible for a refund. (Id.) Plaintiffs and the putative
`class and subclass members they seek to represent all have the opportunity to participate in the
`Program, and have their keyboards fixed free of charge. No Plaintiff, however, has alleged that
`he attempted to take advantage of this opportunity.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A motion to dismiss based on Article III standing is properly raised under Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). The burden of
`proof on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v.
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig.,
`No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90480, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010), aff’d,
`464 F. App’x 651 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either facial or
`
`
`3 No Plaintiff alleges he purchased these models.
`
`
`
`
`4
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 11 of 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
`
`factual.” White, 227 F.3d at 1242. Where the challenge to jurisdiction is facial, the Court applies
`a standard similar to that applied to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358,
`362 (9th Cir. 2004).
`A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff either fails to state a cognizable legal theory or has not alleged
`sufficient facts establishing a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Clemens v.
`DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008). “[C]onclusory allegations without
`more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss . . . .” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d
`802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the Court must not assume the truth of legal conclusions merely
`because they are pled in the form of factual allegations, nor should it accept as true allegations
`contradicted by judicially noticeable facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
`(“plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than
`labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”
`(citation added)).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Injury or Standing Because Their Claims Are
`Moot.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III or prudential standing because the Keyboard Service
`Program addresses and remediates the alleged keyboard defect on which all of their claims
`depend. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot; they cannot establish injury or standing as
`required to maintain their claims. Further, the law is clear that Plaintiffs cannot avoid this result
`by refusing to avail themselves of the Program’s remedies or by purporting to rely on supposed
`issues with the Program allegedly experienced by others and not themselves. 4 Plaintiffs’ claims
`must be dismissed.
`
`4 Plaintiffs cite certain documents out of context for the proposition that replacement of one or
`more keys is not an effective solution. (See FAC ¶¶ 169-171.) These citations do not excuse a
`failure to take advantage of the repair options available under the Keyboard Service Program,
`which also include replacement of the whole keyboard. (Patel Decl., Exs. A, B.)
`
`
`
`
`5
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 12 of 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
`
`Article III standing requires the plaintiff to have suffered an injury-in-fact. In re Apple
`Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1979915 at *8 (N.D. Cal.
`May 3, 2019) (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). “Even at the pleading
`stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating an injury that is both concrete and
`particularized.” Id.; accord In re Apple Processor Litig., 366 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1109 (N.D. Cal.
`2019). “‘In class actions, the named representatives must allege and show that they personally
`have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to
`which they belong and which they purport to represent.’” Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
`Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003).
`Plaintiffs here cannot meet that standard, because the Program addresses and remediates
`the alleged keyboard defect (and the alleged harm flowing from the defect) on which they base all
`their claims, thus eliminating any injury and rendering the claims moot. As one court explained
`in holding that the defendant’s recall and repair program mooted the plaintiffs’ claims and
`defeated standing:
`
`The doctrine of mootness is a corollary to Article III’s “cases” and
`“controversies” requirement. The case and controversy required at the
`commencement of the litigation must continue through “all stages of
`review.” “Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no
`longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
`outcome.”
`
`Hadley v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 13-13665, 2014 WL 988962, at *5-7 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13,
`2014) (citations omitted) (finding that, in light of defendant’s recall/repair program, plaintiffs
`lacked standing and their claims were moot), aff’d, 624 F. App’x 374 (6th Cir. 2015); Tosh-
`Surryhne v. Abbott Labs. Inc., No. CIV S-10-2603 KJM-EFB, 2011 WL 4500880, at *5 (E.D.
`Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) (finding the plaintiff’s claims to be moot where she failed to take advantage
`of the defendant’s program offering refund and replacement product).
`Courts within the Ninth Circuit have similarly held that repair and refund programs moot
`the plaintiffs’ claims and defeat Article III or prudential standing, requiring dismissal. In Cheng
`v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. CV 12-09262 GAF (SHx), 2013 WL 3940815, at *4 (C.D.
`Cal. July 26, 2013), the court held that “simply as a practical matter, it is unclear how Plaintiff
`
`
`
`6
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 13 of 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
`
`can demonstrate injury in light of BMW’s offer to completely repair the roll away defect,” and
`that accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed under the doctrine of prudential standing.
`In Vavak v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., No. SACV 10-1995 JVS (RZx), 2011 WL 10550065, at *3
`(C.D. Cal. June 17, 2011), the court dismissed the named plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages,
`holding that because the defendant “offered a full refund to consumers who purchased infant
`formula from the affected lots, Plaintiff’s request for restitution of the monies spent on the
`product is moot. That Plaintiff rejected a full refund and opted to file suit does not change this
`result.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
`Here, while Plaintiffs purport to challenge the adequacy of Apple’s Program on various
`grounds, not one of the nine named Plaintiffs alleges he has attempted to avail himself of the
`repair or refund under the Program. As in Vavak, that failure is fatal to Plaintiffs’ standing to
`pursue their claims. In Hamilton v. General Mills, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-382-MC, 2016 WL
`6542840, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 2, 2016), General Mills “offered and continue[d] to offer” to refund
`the purchase price of allegedly mislabeled cereal; the plaintiff “simply refused to participate in
`General Mills’ recall efforts or to accept the offered refund.” The court held that the plaintiff’s
`alleged injury was nonetheless mooted by General Mills’ refund program, and he accordingly
`lacked standing to sue because there was “no allegation of a concrete and particularized injury.”
`Id. Plaintiffs’ claims in the present case fail for precisely the same reason.
`Nor can Plaintiffs justify a refusal to participate in the Program based on alleged issues
`with the Program purportedly reported online to avoid dismissal based on mootness. As the court
`held in In re McNeil Consumer Healthcare Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 877 F. Supp.
`2d 254, 275-76 (E.D. Pa. 2012), efforts to avoid mootness based on issues that plaintiffs did not
`personally encounter is fundamentally inconsistent with the standing requirement that injury be
`particularized to the individual plaintiff. Id. at 276 (allegations of others’ experience inadequate
`for named plaintiffs to establish the requisite particularized injury). Further, the court could not
`properly presume that the plaintiffs who did not seek a refund would be denied one or that it
`would be inadequate to make them whole, because when “such speculation is required as to the
`causal link between the behavior of a defendant and an injury of the plaintiff, no standing exists.”
`
`
`
`7
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 14 of 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
`
`Id. Finally, as a matter of policy, if general assertions, not based on personal experience, that a
`repair or refund program were ineffective were sufficient, plaintiffs would always be able to
`avoid the requirement of injury and standing simply by electing not to participate in the program.
`See generally In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 270 F.R.D. 377 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (“rational class
`members would not choose to litigate a multiyear class action just to procure [a remedy that is]
`readily available here and now”). All Plaintiffs’ claims are mooted by the Keyboard Service
`Program. Plaintiffs cannot avoid this result by asserting supposed issues with the Program that
`they have not experienced. Because Plaintiffs cannot show the concrete, particularized individual
`injury required for Article III standing, their claims must be dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ CLRA and Song-Beverly Claims Must Also Be Dismissed Under
`Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`Even apart from their lack of standing, Plaintiffs’ Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
`Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims must once again be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
`As the Court recognized in granting Apple’s prior motion to dismiss these claims, these statutes
`bar Plaintiffs’ claims because Apple has offered a free repair and refund of any prior repair
`expenses. (ECF No. 110 at 14-15.) Plaintiffs cannot avoid that ruling where, as here, they have
`failed to allege that they availed themselves of the Program. Their allegations regarding supposed
`deficiencies in the Program cannot save their claims based on the terms of the statutes themselves
`as well as for the reasons discussed with respect to standing.
`
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ CLRA Claim for Damages Is Barred
`Plaintiffs assert violations of three CLRA provisions: California Civil Code sections
`1770(a)(5), (7), and (9). As this Court has already held, their claims under each of these
`provisions are barred by the Keyboard Service Program and the express terms of the statute.
`Plaintiffs’ FAC utterly fails to rescue their CLRA claim.
`CLRA damages are not recoverable where the defendant has offered an appropriate
`“correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy of the goods and services.” Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1782(c); see also id. §§ 1782(b), 1784. Apple has done exactly that; its Keyboard Service
`Program addresses and resolves the exact same behaviors Plaintiffs allege experiencing with their
`
`
`
`8
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`sf-4030121
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-02813-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/04/19 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`