Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 40 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`NESTOR ALMEIDA, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-cv-07109-VC
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 20
`
`The motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.1 The plaintiffs have conceded their
`
`warranty claims, and their remaining claims are plagued with deficiencies.
`
`Preliminarily, the plaintiffs have not specified which state’s law applies to their common-
`
`law claims, and both parties have cited only California caselaw in discussing other states’
`
`consumer protection laws. Because the parties appear to have tacitly agreed that those claims are
`
`governed by the same principles as the California claims, the Court will adjudicate them under
`
`California caselaw. See In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 926 F.3d 539, 561 (9th
`
`Cir. 2019) (en banc). The one exception is the unjust enrichment claim, which the plaintiffs
`
`appear to consider under different states’ laws in their opposition brief.
`
`The plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are dismissed. The complaint does not attempt
`
`to allege that the plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law nor does it allege a theory that differs
`
`in any meaningful way from the plaintiffs’ claim for damages. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition
`
`
`1 The defendants have not requested that the Court take judicial notice of the exhibits attached to
`the Singh declaration. Regardless, the Court has not considered them, as they relate to the
`warranty claims that have been conceded.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 40 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Corporation, 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020); Cepelak v. HP Inc., 2021 WL 5298022, at *2–3
`
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021).
`
`With the possible exception of the negligent misrepresentation claim, the plaintiffs’
`
`remaining claims are based in fraud and must meet the requirements of Rule 9(b). They have not
`
`surmounted that hurdle to plead reliance on false or misleading statements or omissions. The
`
`complaint alleges a litany of misrepresentations and omissions, but it does not allege with
`
`particularity which marketing materials each plaintiff relied upon and when or whether the
`
`plaintiffs would have seen the information about the defect, had it been disclosed. See Lusson v.
`
`Apple, Inc., 2016 WL 10932723, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016); Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806
`
`F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2015).
`
`The affirmative misrepresentation claims suffer from an additional defect: the plaintiffs
`
`have not identified actionable statements that are false or misleading. Apple’s advertisements
`
`that the laptops are “[d]esigned to last,” “durable,” and the like are non-actionable puffery. See
`
`Davidson v. Apple, Inc., 2017 WL 3149305, at *11 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017). The same is true of
`
`Apple’s vague descriptions of the laptops’ display capabilities (“lifelike colors,” “better picture,”
`
`and the like). The only actionable statements the plaintiffs plead are not statements they allege to
`
`be false. The plaintiffs do not contest, for example, that the laptops’ graphics are not “up to 5x
`
`faster, the biggest leap ever for MacBook Air” or that the laptops do not have 18 hours of battery
`
`life, “the longest ever on a MacBook Air.” Merely alleging that such features are not available to
`
`them because their laptop stopped working entirely is not sufficient to state an affirmative
`
`misrepresentation claim.
`
`The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided whether negligent misrepresentation claims are
`
`subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. But even if the claim is merely subject to
`
`Rule 8’s lower pleading standard, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. As explained
`
`previously, they have not alleged any actionable misrepresentations or reliance on those
`
`misrepresentations.
`
`Finally, although the complaint must be dismissed for the reasons already given, other
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 40 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`aspects leave much to be desired. For example, the complaint is unclear (at best) whether the
`
`problems the plaintiffs experienced with their laptops stemmed from the same defect. See
`
`Sciacca v. Apple, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 787, 797–98 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Some plaintiffs allege that
`
`their screen cracked, which led to various display issues. Others allege that their laptop had
`
`various display issues before their screens began to crack. And still others allege that their
`
`screens displayed colorful squares and then stopped working, without any mention of their
`
`screens cracking. The plaintiffs also bought two different products—the M1 MacBook Air and
`
`the M1 MacBook Pro. The only manufacturing commonality between them the complaint
`
`appears to allege is the M1 chip, which, at first blush, has little connection to the alleged
`
`problems the plaintiffs experienced. The complaint leaves the reader wondering whether the
`
`problems it describes are connected or just a laundry list of unrelated (or marginally related)
`
`issues.
`
`An amended complaint is due within 21 days. Even if not mentioned in this order, the
`
`plaintiffs should carefully consider the arguments raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss
`
`when redrafting the complaint.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 13, 2022
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`VINCE CHHABRIA
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`