Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`DAVID R. SINGH (Bar No. 300840)
`david.singh@weil.com
`MORGAN D. MACBRIDE (Bar No. 301248)
`morgan.macbride@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
`Telephone: (650) 802-3000
`Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
`
`Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`NESTOR ALMEIDA, individually and on
`Lead Case No. 3:21-cv-07109-VC
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Consolidated with No. 3:21-cv-07112-VC
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF AND
`v.
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`APPLE INC.,
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`DAPHNE PAREAS and DANIEL FRIEND,
`Date: March 17, 2022
`on behalf of themselves and all others
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`similarly situated,
`Dept.: Courtroom 4 – 17th Floor
`
`Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 17, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Vince Chhabria in Courtroom 4 – 17th Floor,
`located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`will and hereby does move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs Daniel Friend, Daphne Pareas, Scott
`Seveland, Patrice Sherman, Nestor Almeida, Adelina Lavecchia, Dan Henderson, Maritza
`Angeles, Tim Inselmann, William West-Davis, Patricia Medberry, and Handy Colindrezs’
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
`12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 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, all other pleadings and papers on file herein, and such other
`argument and evidence as may be presented to the Court.
`Dated: December 17, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ David R. Singh
`
`DAVID R. SINGH
`
`Attorney for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1 
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 
`
`Factual Background .................................................................................................2 
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................3 
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................4 
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated Any Actionable Fraud-Based
`Claims ..........................................................................................................4 
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Grounded in Fraud But
`Fail to Satisfy Rule 9(b) ...................................................................4 
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Any Actionable Omission
`(Counts 1-2, 4-15, 17-19).................................................................5 
`
`Plaintiffs’ Fail to Allege An Actionable
`Misrepresentation (Counts 2, 4-7, 9- 15, 18, 20) ...........................11 
`
`The Deceptive Trade Act Claims Fail ...........................................12 
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Any Actionable Warranty Claims .......................13 
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated Facts Establishing a
`Breach of the Express Warranty (Counts 21, 23) ..........................13 
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged An Actionable Implied
`Warranty of Merchantability Claim (Count 22) ............................15 
`
`Plaintiffs’ Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act Claim
`Fails (Count 24) .............................................................................18 
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to State Any Quasi-Contractual Claims
`(Counts 16, 20)...........................................................................................18 
`
`The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Grant Plaintiffs Equitable
`Relief ..........................................................................................................19 
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................................20
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`i
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`A.J. Amer Agency, Inc. v. Astonish Results,
`2014 WL 3496964 (D.R.I. July 11, 2014) ...............................................................................12
`
`Adams v. Johnson,
`355 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................17, 19
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...............................................................................10, 12
`
`Alex & Ani, LLC v. Elite Level Consulting, LLC,
`31 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D.R.I. 2014) .............................................................................................10
`
`Allen v. FCA US LLC,
`2017 WL 1957068 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2017) .........................................................................12
`
`Angus Partners LLC v. Walder,
`52 F. Supp. 3d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................................................18
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`2011 WL 317650 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) ..............................................................................8
`
`Baltazar v. Apple Inc.,
`2011 WL 588209 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) ...........................................................................16
`
`Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank,
`193 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Beausoleil v. Peterbilt Motors Co.,
`2010 WL 2365567 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2010) ..........................................................................15
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Berenblat v. Apple, Inc.,
`2010 WL 1460297 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) .......................................................................7, 12
`
`Breeden v. Richmond Cmty. Coll.,
`171 F.R.D. 189 (M.D.N.C. 1997) ............................................................................................10
`
`Burdt v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`2015 WL 4647929 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2015) ............................................................................7
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`ii
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Cepelak v. HP Inc.,
`2021 WL 5298022 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021) ..................................................................19, 20
`
`Chapman v. Pismo Food Store,
`710 F. App’x 769 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................4
`
`Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,
`505 U.S. 504 (1992) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Clark v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc.,
`2013 WL 5816410 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013) ..........................................................................14
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................5, 18
`
`Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc.,
`18 N.Y.3d 777 (2012) ..............................................................................................................19
`
`Cover v. Windsor Surry Co.,
`2016 WL 3421361 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2016) .........................................................................15
`
`Daniel v. Ford Motor Co.,
`806 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................17
`
`Davidson v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 976048 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) .............................................................4, 5, 14, 15
`
`Diamond “S” Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank,
`989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ......................................................................................19
`
`Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.,
`16 F. Supp. 3d 605 (M.D.N.C. 2014) ......................................................................................18
`
`Drew v. Boaters Landing Inc.,
`2007 WL 2700987 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2007) ........................................................................15
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................17
`
`Espineli v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
`2019 WL 2249605 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2019) ...........................................................................9
`
`Fink v. Time Warner Cable,
`810 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ......................................................................................12
`
`Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Com. & Indus. Ins. Co.,
`2000 WL 1721080 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2000) ..........................................................................18
`
`First Choice Armor v. Toyobo Am., Inc.,
`717 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. Mass. 2010) ......................................................................................10
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`iii
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`Floyd v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................18
`
`In re Ford Tailgate Litig.,
`2014 WL 1007066 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) .........................................................................20
`
`Fuscellaro v. Indus. Nat’l Corp.,
`368 A.2d 1227 (R.I. 1977) .......................................................................................................18
`
`Garcia v. Kashi Co.,
`43 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ......................................................................................18
`
`Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Benevento,
`40 A.2d 202 (N.J. Cir. Ct. 1944) ..............................................................................................18
`
`Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. First Union Nat’l Bank,
`1998 WL 972158 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1998) ......................................................................................18
`
`Hauck v. Advanced Micro Devices,
`2018 WL 5729234 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) ............................................................................4
`
`Herremans v. BMW of N. Am.,
`2014 WL 5017843 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) ..............................................................................9
`
`Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp.,
`89 Cal. App. 4th 908 (2001),
`as modified on denial of reh’g (July 3, 2001) ..........................................................................17
`
`In re iPhone 4S Consumer Litig.
`2013 WL 3829653 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) ..........................................................................13
`
`Isaac v. Ashley Furniture,
`2017 WL 4684027 (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 2017)...........................................................................12
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................4, 11, 12
`
`Kidwell v. Wagoner,
`2010 WL 11507301 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 10, 2010) .......................................................................12
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................2, 11
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`63 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2003) ...........................................................................................................20
`
`Kraft v. Staten Island Boat Sales, Inc.,
`715 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ......................................................................................15
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`iv
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`Lee v. R & K Marine, Inc.,
`598 S.E.2d 683 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) ......................................................................................15
`
`Lusson v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 10932723 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ...................................................................5, 11
`
`M & T Bank Corp. v. Gemstone CDO VII, Ltd.,
`2009 WL 921381 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009),
`aff’d as modified, 891 N.Y.S.2d 578 (App. Div. 2009) ...........................................................10
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ..........................................................................20
`
`Maldonado v. Fasano,
`67 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (S.D. Cal. 1999) ........................................................................................4
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc.,
`2019 WL 652867 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) .............................................................................7
`
`McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................19
`
`Mercado v. Audi of Am., LLC,
`2019 WL 9051000 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) .........................................................................17
`
`Minkler v. Apple, Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 810 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................14, 15
`
`Nash v. Trs. of Bos. Univ.,
`776 F. Supp. 73 (D.R.I. 1990)..................................................................................................10
`
`Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp.,
`544 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .......................................................................................8
`
`In re Palm Ave. Partners, LLC,
`576 B.R. 239 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................10
`
`Palmer v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 1535087 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) ...........................................................................4
`
`Patterson v. RW Direct, Inc.,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................8
`
`Petersen v. FCA US LLC,
`2021 WL 3207962 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2021) ...........................................................................6
`
`Pickett v. Ditech Fin., LLC,
`322 F. Supp. 3d 287 (D.R.I. 2018)...........................................................................................19
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`v
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Plastic Surgery Assocs., S.C. v. Cynosure, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 3d 59 (D. Mass. 2019) ........................................................................................15
`
`Priano-Keyser v. Apple, Inc.,
`2019 WL 7288941 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2019) ..............................................................................15
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) .....................................................................6, 11
`
`Reed v. Zipcar, Inc.,
`883 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Mass. 2012) ......................................................................................18
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................10
`
`Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
`865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................................19
`
`Solum v. Certainteed Corp.,
`147 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D.N.C. 2015)......................................................................................12
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................19, 20
`
`Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,
`2009 WL 1635931 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2009) ...........................................................................15
`
`Stevenson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.,
`2015 WL 3487756 (D.N.J. June 2, 2015) ................................................................................10
`
`Swearingen v. Amazon Preservation Partners, Inc.,
`2014 WL 3934000 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) ........................................................................15
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 1197494 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) ...................................................................11, 16
`
`Tatum v. Chrysler Grp.,
`2011 WL 1253847 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2011) ..............................................................................12
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration
`Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`754 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................14
`
`Trident Prod. & Servs., LLC v. Can. Soiless Wholesale, Ltd.,
`859 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Va. 2012) ......................................................................................19
`
`Troup v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`545 F. App’x 668 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................14
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`vi
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Van Orman v. Am. Ins. Co.,
`680 F.2d 301 (3d Cir. 1982).....................................................................................................19
`
`Whitfield v. Gilchrist,
`497 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1998) .....................................................................................................19
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
`2015 WL 13626022 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015) ............................................................................6
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................7, 9, 16
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) ..................................................................................................................18
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(C) .............................................................................................................18
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1573 ....................................................................................................................10
`
`Cal. Com. Code § 2314 ..................................................................................................................15
`
`Fla. Stat. § 672.314(2)(c) ...............................................................................................................15
`
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-314(2)(c) ........................................................................................15
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-314(2)(c) ...................................................................................................15
`
`N.J. Stat. § 12A:2-314(2)(c) ..........................................................................................................15
`
`N.Y. U.C.C.....................................................................................................................................15
`
`R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-314(2)(c) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Va. Code § 8.2-314(2)(c) ...............................................................................................................15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .........................................................................................................................3, 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)..................................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`vii
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Despite having an opportunity to file a Consolidated Complaint (“Complaint”) and having
`the benefit of Apple’s responses to Plaintiffs’ CLRA letters, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim with
`regard to any alleged defect in Apple’s M1 MacBooks. Plaintiffs, who are twelve purchasers of
`Apple M1 MacBook Air or M1 MacBook Pro notebook computers (together, the “M1
`MacBooks”), allege that they experienced blacking out, magenta, purple and blue lines and
`squares, or other issues with the displays of their devices. But Plaintiffs do not allege that these
`issues are traceable to any common defect. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not even identify the alleged
`defect. As explained below, these deficiencies among many others are fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims
`and thus the Court should dismiss the consolidated complaint.
`First, Plaintiffs have failed to state any actionable fraud-based claims. Plaintiffs do not
`satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), including due to Plaintiffs’ failure to identify
`the alleged defect underlying their claims. Plaintiffs’ fraudulent omission claims are likewise
`deficient because they fail to allege facts establishing that (1) Apple knew about the alleged defect
`at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchases or (2) that Apple owed a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs’ claims
`based on an affirmative misrepresentation also fail because Plaintiffs do not specify which
`representations are false or misleading, let alone where or when they were exposed to them, and
`the representations identified are non-actionable.
`Second, Plaintiffs have failed to state any warranty claims. Plaintiffs’ express warranty
`claims fail because the One (1) Year Limited Warranty (the “Limited Warranty”) that comes
`with the devices explicitly states that it is in lieu of other warranties and Plaintiffs have not alleged
`a defect in “materials and workmanship” covered by the Limited Warranty. The Limited Warranty
`also effectively disclaimed the implied warranty of merchantability. Further, many of the Plaintiffs
`do not allege issues establishing that their devices were not merchantable. Plaintiffs’ Song-
`Beverly Act claim also fails with their state law implied warranty of merchantability claim.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ quasi-contractual claims each fail. Plaintiffs’ money had and received
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`claim fails because Plaintiffs do not allege that Apple obtained money to be used for Plaintiffs’
`benefit, nor how Apple became indebted to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim fails
`because they allege that a valid express contract governs the subject matter of this dispute.
`For all of these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff Almeida and Plaintiffs Pareas and Friend filed separate actions on September 14,
`2021, but stipulated to consolidate the actions and proceed under the currently operative
`consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 13, 15.
`Plaintiffs allegedly purchased either an M1 MacBook Pro or M1 MacBook Air between
`November 2020 and May 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 4-15. Plaintiffs allege that Apple described the display
`on the M1 MacBooks as “brilliant” and “gorgeous,” and stated that “everything looks stunning on
`the 13-inch Retina display” with “even more vibrant, true-to-life images.” Id. ¶¶ 28, 33-35, 39.
`Each Plaintiff allegedly “relied upon” unspecified “advertisements, representations, packaging,
`and the information publicly available in the marketplace” “when deciding to purchase” their M1
`MacBook. Id. ¶¶ 4-15.
`The Limited Warranty that comes with the M1 MacBooks warrants “against defects in
`materials and workmanship when used normally in accordance with Apple’s published guidelines
`[including “technical specifications, user manuals and service communications”] for a period of
`ONE (1) Year from the date of original retail purchase by the end-user purchaser.”1 The Limited
`Warranty also states:
`TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THIS WARRANTY AND THE
`REMEDIES SET FORTH ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
`WARRANTIES . . . . APPLE DISCLAIMS ALL STATUTORY AND IMPLIED
`WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF
`MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
`
`1 True and correct copies of the Limited Warranty corresponding with Plaintiffs’ M1 MacBooks
`are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C to the Declaration of David R. Singh filed concurrently
`herewith (the “Singh Decl.”). Although Plaintiffs did not attach any version of the Limited
`Warranty to their Complaint, Plaintiffs’ claims rely upon the terms of the Limited Warranty, and
`the Court may thus consider its contents in ruling on this motion to dismiss. See Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). This language, and all language quoted from the Limited
`Warranty, appears in all versions of the Limited Warranty applicable when Plaintiffs allegedly
`purchased their M1 MacBooks. See Singh Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`WARRANTIES AGAINST HIDDEN OR LATENT DEFECTS, TO THE EXTENT
`PERMITTED BY LAW. IN SO FAR AS SUCH WARRANTIES CANNOT BE
`DISCLAIMED, APPLE LIMITS THE DURATION AND REMEDIES OF SUCH
`WARRANTIES TO THE DURATION OF THIS EXPRESS WARRANTY . . . .
`
`Id. (capital letters in original).
`Plaintiffs allege that the M1 MacBooks are defective because the displays are “cracking,
`blacking out, or showing magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise ceasing to
`function altogether.” Compl. ¶¶ 1, 40. And they complain that Apple informed all but one Plaintiff
`that “it would not cover the cost” of screen repair under the Limited Warranty. Compl. ¶¶ 4-14.
`Apple allegedly repaired the other Plaintiff’s M1 MacBook under warranty twice. Id. ¶ 15.
`Plaintiffs’ purport to represent a nationwide class of purchasers of “model year 2020 or
`later M1 MacBook Air or M1 MacBook Pro” and subclasses of purchasers from California,
`Florida, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Id. ¶ 114.2 Plaintiffs
`assert violations of state deceptive trade practice and false advertising laws (Counts 1-2, 4-12)
`(collectively, the “Deceptive Trade Act” claims); various forms of common law fraud (Counts
`13-15, 17-19) (collectively, the “Common Law Fraud” claims); claims for breach of express and
`implied warranty, breach of contract, and violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act and
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Counts 3, 21-24) (collectively, the “Warranty” claims); and
`claims for money had and received and unjust enrichment (Counts 16, 20) (the “Quasi-
`Contractual Claims”).
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to plead “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). A complaint must
`be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff either fails to state a cognizable legal theory
`or has not alleged sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Id. at 562–63. A pleading
`that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
`will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint must allege facts, which,
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs later reference a “Massachusetts Subclass,” Compl. ¶ 181, but that sub-class is not
`defined in the Complaint.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 20 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`if taken as true, raise more than a speculative right to relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`Where a plaintiff alleges “a unified course of fraudulent conduct” the claim is grounded in
`fraud regardless of the label of the claim, and Rule 9(b) applies. Kearns v. Ford Motor, 567 F.3d
`1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). “[Rule 9(b)] applie[s] to entire claims that sound in fraud even if fraud
`is not an element of the claim.” Hauck v. Advanced Micro Devices, 2018 WL 5729234, at *4
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018). “[C]laims sounding in fraud must allege ‘an account of the time, place,
`and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the
`misrepresentations.’” Davidson v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 976048, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017).
`Plaintiff must also set forth “what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.”
`Id. For omission claims, a “plaintiff must describe the content of the omission and where the
`omitted information should or could have been revealed, as well as provide representative samples
`of advertisements, offers, or other representations that plaintiff relied on to make her purchase and
`that failed to include the allegedly omitted information.” Palmer v. Apple Inc., 2016 WL 1535087,
`at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016).
`In assessing dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, courts recognize that Congress has
`“plenary and unlimited authority . . . to curtail the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower federal
`courts” through legislation. Maldonado v. Fasano, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1181 (S.D. Cal. 1999)
`(citing Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. (How.) 236 (1845)). Where a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
`it “must dismiss the [claims] under Rule 12(b)(1).” Chapman v. Pismo Food Store, 710 F. App’x
`769, 770 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004)).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated Any Actionable Fraud-Based Claims
`1.
`
`All of Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Grounded in Fraud But Fail to Satisfy
`Rule 9(b)
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in fraud. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Apple:
` knowingly “misrepresented . . . and concealed the Defect” (see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 127(c) (UCL),
`142 (CLRA), 161 (FAL), 174-75 (Fla. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act); 186-87
`(Mass. Consumer Protection Act); 201-02 (N.J. Consumer Fraud Act); 210-11 (N.Y