Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`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 MOTION
`v.
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`APPLE INC.,
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`DAPHNE PAREAS and DANIEL FRIEND,
`
`on behalf of themselves and all others
`Date: September 29, 2022
`similarly situated,
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`
`Dept.: Courtroom 4 – 17th Floor
`
`Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, September 29, 2022, at 9:30 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, at an in-person hearing,
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby does move to dismiss all claims pursued by
`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 Colindrez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 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: July 15, 2022
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ David R. Singh
`
`DAVID R. SINGH
`
`Attorney for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ................................................................. ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..............................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated Any Actionable Fraud-Based
`Claims ..........................................................................................................5
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege An Actionable Omission
`(Counts 1-16) ...................................................................................5
`
`a)
`b)
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Defect .........................................5
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege Apple’s
`Knowledge .........................................................................10
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Facts Establishing A Duty
`to Disclose ..........................................................................15
`Plaintiffs’ Fail to Allege An Actionable
`Misrepresentation (Counts 1-14, 16) .............................................16
`
`c)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Fails
`(Count 16) ......................................................................................17
`
`Plaintiffs’ Deceptive Trade Act Claims Fail (Counts
`1-11) ...............................................................................................17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Quasi-Contract Claim (Counts 17) ......................18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Seeking Equitable Relief Fail .......................................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Factual Allegations Purportedly
`Satisfying Sonner and Cepelak Should Be
`Disregarded As a Sham ..................................................................18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Lack Standing to Seek Prospective
`Injunctive Relief .............................................................................19
`
`V.
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................20
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`i
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Adams v. Johnson,
`355 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................10
`
`Ahern v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 541 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................16
`
`Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc.,
`744 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................19
`
`Alex & Ani, LLC v. Elite Level Consulting, LLC,
`31 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D.R.I. 2014) .............................................................................................15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`2011 WL 317650 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) ............................................................................14
`
`Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank,
`193 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Breeden v. Richmond Cmty. Coll.,
`171 F.R.D. 189 (M.D.N.C. 1997) ............................................................................................15
`
`Cepelak v. HP Inc.,
`2021 WL 5298022 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021) ..............................................................2, 18, 19
`
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................4
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ...................................................................................................................20
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc.,
`967 N.E.2d 1177 (N.Y. 2012) ..................................................................................................18
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Davidson v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 976048 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) .............................................................................4
`
`Diamond “S” Dev. Corp. v. Mercantile Bank,
`989 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) .......................................................................................18
`
`Espineli v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
`2019 WL 2249605 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2019) .........................................................................12
`
`Falk v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`2018 WL 2234303 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) ...........................................................................7
`
`First Choice Armor & Euip., Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc.,
`717 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. Mass. 2010) ........................................................................1, 6, 11, 15
`
`Ghalehtak v. Fay Servicing, LLC,
`304 F. Supp. 3d 877 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................17
`
`Hauck v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`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) ............................................................................12
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................4, 17
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................8
`
`Leite v. Crane Co.,
`749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Lusson v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 10932723 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) .......................................................................16
`
`M & T Bank Corp. v. Gemstone CDO VII, Ltd.,
`2009 WL 921381 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Erie Cnty. Apr. 7, 2009),
`aff’d as modified, 891 N.Y.S.2d 578 (App. Div. 2009) ...........................................................15
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc.,
`2019 WL 652867 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) ...........................................................................11
`
`McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................18
`
`Nash v. Trs. of Bos. Univ.,
`776 F. Supp. 73 (D.R.I. 1990)..................................................................................................15
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`Norkunas v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
`343 F. App’x 269 (9th Cir. 2009) ..............................................................................................4
`
`O’Shea v. Littleton,
`414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp.,
`544 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .....................................................................................14
`
`In re Palm Ave. Partners, LLC,
`576 B.R. 239 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017) ....................................................................................15
`
`Patterson v. RW Direct, Inc.,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................14
`
`Pelayo v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`2021 WL 1808628 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) .............................................................................5
`
`Petzschke v. Century Aluminum Co.
`(In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig.),
`729 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Pickett v. Ditech Fin., LLC,
`322 F. Supp. 3d 287 (D.R.I. 2018)...........................................................................................18
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) .....................................................................5, 17
`
`In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.,
`2020 WL 7664461 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020) ...........................................................................5
`
`Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................15
`
`Satre v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2014 WL 12921393 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) ......................................................................19
`
`Sciacca v. Apple, Inc.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................5
`
`Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
`865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................................18
`
`Skiathitis v. Nyko Technologies, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6427360 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018) ........................................................................11
`
`Stevenson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.,
`2015 WL 3487756 (D.N.J. June 2, 2015) ................................................................................15
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`Trident Prods. & Servs., LLC v. Can. Soiless Wholesale, Ltd.,
`859 F. Supp. 2d 771 (E.D. Va. 2012) ......................................................................................18
`
`Van Orman v. Am. Ins. Co.,
`680 F.2d 301 (3d Cir. 1982).....................................................................................................18
`
`Whitfield v. Gilchrist,
`497 S.E.2d 412 (N.C. 1998) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
`2015 WL 13626022 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015) ....................................................................10, 13
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Statute
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1573 ....................................................................................................................15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 .............................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ......................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ....................................................................................................................4, 16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)....................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Complaint, ECF No. 43 (“FACC”) fails to remedy
`the litany of dispositive pleading deficiencies that the Court identified in its Order Granting Motion
`to Dismiss, ECF No. 40 (“MTD Order”). Despite hiring a purported expert to backfill facts
`supporting a defect within the contours of their original Consolidated Complaint, ECF No. 17
`(“Complaint”), Plaintiffs still do not (and cannot) adequately plead a defect. Nor do Plaintiffs
`plausibly allege how a single design defect impacts two different products with two different
`designs, or how this purported defect caused such a “laundry list of unrelated [] issues.” MTD
`Order at 3. As set forth below, these deficiencies among many others are fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims
`and thus the Court should dismiss the FACC with prejudice.
`First, Plaintiffs have not stated any actionable fraud-based claims. Plaintiffs’ fraudulent
`omission claims are deficient because, as discussed above, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege an
`actionable defect, much less a common defect impacting two different products with different
`designs—the M1 MacBook Air (“M1 Air”) and the M1 MacBook Pro (“M1 Pro,” and collectively
`“M1 MacBooks”). Plaintiffs’ fraudulent omission claims are further defective for two additional,
`independent reasons. Plaintiffs fail to allege facts making it plausible that Apple had knowledge
`of the purported defect at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchases, and Plaintiffs likewise fail to adequately
`allege that Apple owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs’ fraud claims based on affirmative
`misrepresentations fail because the Court found that every affirmative misrepresentation in the
`Complaint was non-actionable or not alleged to be false, and here, Plaintiffs neither identify any
`new representations nor explain how any representations were false when made. Finally, Plaintiffs
`cannot state a negligent misrepresentation claim based on an omission theory as a matter of law.
`Second, Plaintiffs fail to state a quasi-contract claim. Despite acknowledging in the
`Complaint that an express contract (the Limited Warranty) governs the subject matter of the
`alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiffs still do not allege that contract is voidable.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ demands for equitable relief fail for multiple reasons. Plaintiffs lack
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`standing to seek equitable relief pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sonner and this Court’s
`decision in Cepelak. A plaintiff cannot, without explanation, plead facts that contradict facts
`alleged in an earlier complaint. Yet, with no explanation—much less a legitimate one—Plaintiffs
`reversed their factual allegations with respect to their future purchasing intentions. The Court can
`and should disregard Plaintiffs’ unexplained flip-flop as a sham and, consistent with its prior order,
`dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief based on Sonner and Cepelak. Separately, Plaintiffs
`lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because they do not allege facts making it
`plausible that that they will likely be (allegedly) harmed in the future in a similar manner.
`For these reasons, the Court should dismiss the FACC in its entirety with prejudice.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`In response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF 20 (“MTD”).
`In turn, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition, ECF No. 21 (“MTD Opp’n”), and Apple filed a Reply, ECF
`No. 22. The Court granted the MTD, dismissed each of Plaintiffs’ claims, and forewarned that
`“[e]ven 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.” MTD Order at 3.
`Plaintiffs allegedly purchased either an M1 Air or M1 Pro between November 2020 and
`May 2021. FACC ¶¶ 12-59. Plaintiffs allege that, during the “normal course of use” they
`experienced a wide range of issues with the M1 MacBooks’ displays, including that they “cracked,
`blacked out, or showed magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise ceased to function
`altogether.” See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 14, 18, 22, 26, 65. But, no Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that they did
`not damage their display.
`Plaintiffs retained Dr. David V. Niebuhr to compare the M1 MacBooks to previous
`MacBook models “to determine what was different in the newer models and what was causing”
`their myriad of symptoms. Id. ¶¶ 66-67.1 Unsupported by any affidavit, declaration, or report, Dr.
`
`
`1 Dr. Niebuhr is a metallurgist who is currently serving as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in
`another putative class action against Apple. Order Granting Motion to Certify Class; Granting in
`Part and Denying in Part Apple’s Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Hal J. Singer; Granting
`Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of David V. Niebuhr, In re MacBook Keyboard Litig., No. 5:18-
`cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021), ECF No. 317.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`2
`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 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`Niebuhr points to a variety of purported design choices, including the supposed low clearance
`between the top case and display and the supposedly thinner display. Id. ¶ 68. Without explanation
`as to the interaction of these design choices, he claims that they result in displays failing without
`warning, but he conducted no analysis to rule out other causes (such as the possibility that Plaintiffs
`damaged their display through improper handling) and appears to simply assume that the myriad
`of symptoms was caused by the design changes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 68, see generally id. Plaintiffs
`admit that Dr. Niebuhr did not compare any prior MacBook Air models, and instead compared the
`M1 Pro and M1 Air against two predecessor MacBook Pro models. Id. ¶ 70.
`Plaintiffs’ purport to represent a nationwide class of purchasers of “model year 2020 or
`later 13.3-inch M1 MacBook Air or M1 MacBook Pro” and subclasses of purchasers from
`California, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and
`Virginia. Id. ¶ 168. Plaintiffs assert violations of state deceptive trade practice and false
`advertising laws (Counts 1-11) (collectively, the “Deceptive Trade Act” claims); various forms
`of common law fraud (Counts 12-16) (collectively, the “Common Law Fraud” claims); and a
`claim for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment (Count 17) (the “Quasi Contract Claim”).
`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 under Rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff fails to either state a cognizable legal theory or
`allege 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, if taken
`as true, raise more than a speculative right to relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges “a unified course of fraudulent conduct[,]” the claim is
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`grounded in fraud regardless of the label of the claim, and Rule 9(b) applies.2 Kearns v. Ford
`Motor Co., 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, Inc.,
`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) (citation omitted). Plaintiff must also set forth “what is false or misleading
`about a statement, and why it is false.” Id.
`A defendant may also move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
`Rule 12(b)(1) “in one of two ways.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). “A
`‘facial’ attack accepts the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but asserts that they ‘are insufficient
`on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373
`F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)). “A ‘factual’ attack, by contrast, contests the truth of the
`plaintiff's factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the pleadings.” Id. In the
`context of a factual attack, the Court may “consider evidence outside the complaint without
`converting the motion into a summary judgment motion.” Norkunas v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
`343 F. App’x 269, 270 (9th Cir. 2009).” The Court “‘need not presume the truthfulness of the
`plaintiff’s allegations’” in deciding a factual attack. Id. (quoting Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d
`at 1039). Once the defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
`Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. See Chandler
`v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`
`2 Each of Plaintiffs’ surviving claims is grounded in fraud. See, e.g., FACC ¶¶ 181, 185 (UCL);
`194, 196 (CLRA); 205 (FAL, “misrepresented the M1 MacBooks and concealed the Defect”); 219
`(Fla. Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act); 232, 235 (Mass. Consumer Protection Act); 247
`(N.J. Consumer Fraud Act); 256 (N.Y. G.B.L. § 349); 266-67 (N.Y. G.B.L. § 350); 267 (N.C.
`Consumer Protection Act, “partially representing and omitting material information”); 289 (R.I.
`Deceptive Trade Practices Act); 301 (Va. Consumer Protection Act)); 313-14 (fraud); 322
`(constructive fraud); 333 (fraudulent inducement); 343 (fraudulent concealment); 356-58
`(negligent misrepresentation); 363 (quasi-contract/unjust enrichment).
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`4
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated Any Actionable Fraud-Based Claims
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege An Actionable Omission (Counts 1-16)
`a)
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Defect
`
`Plaintiffs’ omission-based claims should be dismissed because they do not (and cannot)
`allege any defect, much less a single defect that impacts two different products and produces a
`wide array of symptoms. In a failed attempt to fix the glaring deficiencies that the Court identified
`in its MTD Order, Plaintiffs offer a great volume of new allegations. But volume is no substitute
`for substance; as demonstrated below, the contents of Plaintiffs’ allegations remain woefully
`deficient.
`To plausibly allege a defect and to comply with Rule 9(b), Plaintiffs must satisfy several
`pleading requirements. First, Plaintiffs must plausibly identify the purported defect. Sciacca v.
`Apple, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 787, 797 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“Plaintiff fails to identify what is the actual
`defect . . . .”) (emphasis in original). Second, because Plaintiffs allege a common defect across the
`M1 Pro and M1 Air, they must also plausibly allege how that defect could exist in two different
`products that have different designs. See In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Pracs.
`Litig., 2020 WL 7664461, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020) (“Plaintiffs must provide factual
`allegations describing each Subject [computer] (not just [one]) and the component or setup that
`causes alleged injuries in order to survive a motion to dismiss.”). Third, Plaintiffs must also
`plausibly allege a causal nexus between the purported defect and Plaintiffs’ alleged many
`symptoms. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Plaintiffs have
`not alleged a sufficient [causal] nexus between the alleged design defect and the alleged
`[symptoms].”); see also Punian v. Gillette Co., 2016 WL 1029607, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15,
`2016); Pelayo v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 2021 WL 1808628, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021)
`(Plaintiffs “allege[] a number of disparate symptoms stemming from a purported defect” but that
`they “fail[ed] to explain how these symptoms resulted from a common cause”).
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`Consistent with these principles, the Court identified at least three deficiencies with
`Plaintiffs’ prior attempt to allege a defect. MTD Order at 3. The Court found that Plaintiffs did
`not: (1) adequately define any defect; (2) explain how the alleged design defect could impact “two
`different products” where Plaintiffs did not allege the products had any commonality other than
`the “M1 chip,” which has no connection to the alleged defect; and (3) explain a causal link between
`the alleged defect and the myriad symptoms Plaintiffs purportedly experienced. MTD Order at 3.
`As set forth below, despite the veneer of supposed expert opinion, Plaintiffs did not cure any of
`these deficiencies.
`
`(1)
`
`Plaintiffs Still Fail to Adequately Define a Defect
`
`Plaintiffs still have not plausibly identified a defect. They hang their hat entirely on an
`“analysis” by Dr. Niebuhr. Specifically, Dr. Niebuhr allegedly compared the M1 MacBooks to
`previous MacBook models to determine what was different in the newer models. This
`“methodology” does not plausibly identify a defect for a multitude of independent and dispositive
`reasons:
`First, rather than identify a specific defect, Plaintiffs, through Dr. Niebuhr, point to a
`laundry list of various components—rubber bezel, liquid crystal display (LCD), LCD display,
`layers of glass, glass covering the LCD display, monitor, aluminum frame, and aluminum
`housing—and they do not explain how these components interact with each other to allegedly
`cause the various symptoms that Plaintiffs claim to have suffered. See FACC ¶¶ 71-77.
`Second, Dr. Niebuhr’s comparison assumes that the display symptoms manifest at a higher
`rate in the M1 MacBooks than in the previous models he used as the basis for comparison. Without
`any factual allegations that the display symptoms manifested less frequently in the previous
`models, the inference that observed differences in the design of the M1 MacBooks are defects is
`unwarranted.
`Third, Dr. Niebuhr appears to simply assume that the alleged display symptoms occur at
`an unusual or alarming rate in the M1 MacBooks and Plaintiffs allege no other facts showing that
`the alleged symptoms manifest in the M1 MacBooks at an unusual or alarming rate that would be
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`6
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07112-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 46 Filed 07/15/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`material to a reasonable consumer. Cf. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1027
`(9th Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment on a consumer fraud claim where plaintiff “has
`produced insufficient evidence that the failure rate of the head gasket was material to a reasonable
`consumer”) (emphasis added).
`Fourth, lacking any well plead allegations that the display symptoms manifest in the M1
`MacBooks at an unusual or alarming rate, Plaintiffs’ allegations of a defect boil down to their
`subjective beliefs that Apple’s design choices made the wrong tradeoffs, but subjective belief that
`a product could be designed better is not a sufficient basis to plausibly allege a defect. Cf. Falk v.
`Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2018 WL 2234303, at *9 (N.D. C