Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 1 of 26
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Sean L. Litteral (State Bar No. 331985)
`Elvia M. Lopez (State Bar No. 331986)
`1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
` slitteral@bursor.com
` elopez@bursor.com
`
`
`MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
`Nicholas A. Migliaccio (pro hac vice)
`Jason S. Rathod (pro hac vice)
`412 H St., NE
`Washington. D.C. 20002
`Telephone: (202) 470-3520
`Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
`E-Mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
` jrathod@classlawdc.com
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-07109-VC
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`THE FIRST AMENDED
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`Date: September 29, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Dept.: Courtroom 4 – 17th floor
`Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Their Fraud-Based Claims ...................................... 2 
`1. 
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege a Defect ....................................................... 2 
`2. 
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege a Common Defect Across the M1
`MacBook Pro and M1 MacBook Air Models ............................................ 5 
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege the Defect Results in Display Failures ............ 7 
`3. 
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege Pre-Sale Knowledge of the Defect ............... 10 
`4. 
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege Facts Establishing a Duty to Disclose .......... 16 
`5. 
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Their Negligent Misrepresentation Claims ........... 18 
`B. 
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Their Quasi-Contract Claims ................................ 18 
`C. 
`Plaintiffs Have Standing to Seek Equitable Relief .............................................. 18 
`D. 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 20 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 3 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES 
`
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`2011 WL 317650 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) ............................................................................. 13
`
`Beyer v. Symantec Corp.,
`333 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`Borkman v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2017 WL 4082420 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2017) .................................................................... 13, 16
`
`Brown v. Natures Path Foods, Inc.,
`2022 WL 717816 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2022) ...................................................................... 10, 20
`
`Calhoun v. Google LLC,
`526 F. Supp. 3d 605 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`Cepelak v. HP Inc.,
`2021 WL 5298022 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021) ................................................................... 16, 20
`
`City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp.,
`750 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`528 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cutler v. Rancher Energy Corp.,
`2014 WL 1153054 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Davidson v. Apple, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3149305 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017) .................................................................... passim
`
`Davidson v. Apple, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2325426 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) .......................................................................... 4, 9
`
`Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Espineli v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
`2019 WL 2249605 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2019) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................. 16, 17
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 4 of 26
`
`Falk v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,
`2018 WL 2234303 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Finney v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2018 WL 2552266 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`2021 WL 1238304 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Hardt v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`2015 WL 12683965 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Herremans v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2014 WL 5017843 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Hough v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7227198 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020) .............................................................................. 4
`
`In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig.,
`729 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 3, 4
`
`In re Juul Labs, Inc., Antitrust Litig.,
`555 F. Supp. 3d 932 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`2019 WL 1765817 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) ........................................................ 10, 12, 16, 17
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litigation.,
`2021 WL 1250378 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021) .............................................................................. 9
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litigation.,
`2022 WL 1604753 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) ......................................................................... 2, 3
`
`In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig.,
`46 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 15
`
`In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.,
`2020 WL 7664461 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Grp.,
`516 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (S.D. Cal. 2021) ..................................................................................... 18
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`2011 WL 3501715 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) ......................................................................... 11
`
`MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co.,
`37 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 14
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 5 of 26
`
`Mandani v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`2019 WL 652867 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) ............................................................................ 10
`
`McHenry v. Renne,
`84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 12
`
`Moran v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC,
`2022 WL 3046906 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022) ........................................................................... 20
`
`Myers v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2016 WL 5897740 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) ....................................................................... 9, 13
`
`Obertman v. Electrolux Home Care Prod., Inc.,
`482 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2020)..................................................................................... 18
`
`OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.,
`157 Cal. App. 4th 835 (2007) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp.,
`544 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Parrish v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`463 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................ 10, 13, 15
`
`Pelayo v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`2021 WL 1808628 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Sciacca v. Apple, Inc.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 787 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Skiathitis v. Nyko Techs., Inc.,
`2018 WL 6427360 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2017)....................................................................................... 4
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 1197494 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) ................................................................... passim
`
`United States v. Mariner Health Care, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4259907 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Weeks v. Google LLC,
`2018 WL 3933398 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018) ................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F. 3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 6 of 26
`
`Yeomans v. World Fin. Grp. Ins. Agency, Inc.,
`2022 WL 844152 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Zuehlsdorf v. FCA US LLC,
`2019 WL 2098352 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) ............................................................................ 7
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 7 of 26
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On November 10, 2020, Defendant released the M1 MacBook Air and M1 MacBook Pro
`(collectively, “M1 MacBooks” or “MacBooks”). Dkt. No. 43 (“FAC”) ¶ 61. In its design of the
`13.3 inch M1 MacBooks, Defendant ditched the much-despised, defective “butterfly keyboard”
`for the vaunted—and thicker—“magic keyboard.”1 In doing so, however, Defendant switched one
`defect for another. To maintain the thin profile of its flagship products, Defendant designed the
`M1 MacBooks with a low clearance between the top case and thin display, which is comprised of
`several fragile, insufficiently supported components. As a result of Defendant’s design parameters
`that decreased the mechanical strength of the M1 MacBooks, the display deforms more for a given
`load and is unable to support the ordinary loads of normal laptop use, leading to the display
`cracking and/or blotching during regular use free of user error (“Clearance Defect” or “Defect”).
`Defendant has touted the thinness and portability of the MacBooks, but entirely failed to
`warn Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of the Clearance Defect. Instead, Defendant has shifted
`blame to consumers and continues to pocket significant revenue from them, including long-
`standing users of Apple laptops, who are left with no choice but to repair their M1 display—again
`and again. Defendant now seeks to wipe its hands clean and represents that it no longer sells the
`M1 MacBooks. Although Defendant debuted a redesigned 13.6 inch MacBook in July 2022, its
`redesign does not insulate it from liability for the Defect in the M1 MacBooks, which continue to
`be sold. Despite its long-standing knowledge of the Defect, Defendant still refuses to inform
`consumers of the Defect’s true nature. Denying that any defect exists, Defendant asks the Court
`to draw inferences in its favor and to ignore Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations.
`Following the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 40), Plaintiffs consulted a metallurgist, Dr. David
`Niebuhr, to assess the source of the common display issues in the M1 MacBooks. Plaintiffs
`strengthened their allegations concerning the defect and other deficiencies the Court identified.
`Defendant moves to dismiss again and, by way of a disingenuous 12(b)(1) challenge, fills its
`
`1 The butterfly keyboard is the subject of a class action concerning MacBooks manufactured from
`2015 to 2019, and the case has been extensively litigated, including three motions to dismiss, as
`well as class certification and Daubert rulings. See MTD at 2 n.1; In Re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-02813, ECF No. 410 (Motion for Preliminary Approval).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 8 of 26
`
`motion with merits-based arguments that extend beyond any purported lack of standing for
`injunctive relief. To survive its Rule 12(b)(6) challenges, Defendant effectively asks the Court to
`require that Plaintiffs plead a full expert report and resorts to recycling its fact-intensive challenges
`against Dr. Niebuhr, which Judge Davila rejected in In Re MacBook Keyboard Litigation. Despite
`Defendant’s efforts to convert its motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, the Court too
`should reject those merits-based challenges. Defendant is free to later dispute the merits, but
`Plaintiffs have met their burden at this early stage. Defendant’s motion should thus be denied.
`II.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Their Fraud-Based Claims
`Defendant does not again challenge that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged reliance, or the
`“who, what, when, are where” of its fraudulent omissions. See Davidson v. Apple, Inc., 2017 WL
`3149305, at *13–14 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017) (finding analogous allegations alleged with
`particularity). Instead, Defendant’s challenges concern the mechanical details of the Clearance
`Defect, its knowledge, and its duty to disclose. As Plaintiffs sufficiently allege each of these,
`Plaintiffs’ fraud claims (Counts 12-15, 17) should survive. As Defendant did not otherwise
`challenge Plaintiffs’ consumer claims (Counts 1-11), see MTD at 17, those too should survive.
`1.
`Plaintiffs Adequately Allege a Defect
`As discussed, Plaintiffs consulted Dr. Niebuhr, a metallurgical engineer and Adjunct
`Professor at California Polytechnic University, who specializes in “product development,
`materials selection, and design and failure analysis.” FAC ¶ 66. As Defendant notes, Dr. Niebuhr
`“review[ed] and assess[ed] the existence of the alleged keyboard defect” in In re MacBook
`Keyboard Litigation. See 2022 WL 1604753, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022). But Defendant fails
`to mention that it made the same fact-intensive arguments about his analysis as it does here.
`Specifically, following class certification in In Re MacBook Keyboard Litigation,
`Defendant argued that Dr. Niebuhr failed to “consider[] a number of possible hypotheses,”
`considered an “inadequate” sample of MacBook models, “failed to follow a consistent protocol,”
`“did not even mention the[] repair rates,” ignored “significant design changes” across models, and
`failed to “prove causality” for the purportedly different causes for “keyboard behaviors at issue.”
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 9 of 26
`
`See ECF No. 335 (“Daubert Motion”) at 1-10. But the court roundly rejected Defendant’s fact-
`intensive arguments, holding that “Apple’s remedy is to cross-examine Dr. Niebuhr and put
`forward its own rebuttal expert evidence.” See 2022 WL 1604753, at *3 (citing City of Pomona
`v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A factual dispute is best settled by a
`battle of the experts before the fact finder, not by judicial fiat.”)).
`In this case, Defendant again disagrees with Dr. Niebuhr’s methodology and conclusions
`and thus recycles its challenges against him. Compare Daubert Motion with MTD at 6-10. But in
`doing so, Defendant now asks this Court to resolve fact-intensive arguments in Defendant’s favor.
`Defendant effectively faults Plaintiffs for not conclusively proving a defect exists, but Plaintiffs
`have plausibly alleged a design defect. Within a limited time frame, Dr. Niebuhr focused his
`analysis on the 13.3 inch M1 MacBook Pro and 13.3 inch M1 MacBook Air to assess the cause of
`widespread, pervasive display failure in both models that was not present in previous models. Dr.
`Niebuhr inspected the design of each model, focusing his evaluation on the “materials, structural
`design, and behavior of the monitor during use.” FAC ¶¶ 61, 66-71. Dr. Niebuhr determined that
`the M1 MacBooks suffer from a design defect that renders the display subject to cracking and/or
`screen blotching during normal use free of user error.
`Defendant heavily disputes the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims through its apparent
`disagreement with Dr. Niebuhr’s analysis. For example, Defendant argues that Dr. Niebuhr
`“simply assumes that the alleged display symptoms occur at an unusual or alarming rate” and notes
`that there are “no facts showing that the alleged symptoms manifest in the M1 MacBooks at an
`unusual or alarming rate that would be material to a reasonable consumer.” MTD at 6. But
`Defendant cites a summary judgment decision to support its attempt to rebut Plaintiffs’ well-
`pleaded allegations. See id. (citing Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th
`Cir. 2008)). Defendant well knows that materiality “should be left to the jury.” See Beyer v.
`Symantec Corp., 333 F. Supp. 3d 966, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (rejecting defendant’s arguments
`concerning whether alleged defects or statements regarding alleged defects were “material”).
`To take a second example, Defendant speculates about user error to insert facts contrary to
`Plaintiffs’ allegations. MTD at 7 (citing In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig., 729 F.3d 1104,
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 10 of 26
`
`1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (dealing with strict tracing requirements in securities fraud case)). Plaintiffs’
`theory of the case concerns a defect that manifests free of user error. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 1, 68, 109
`(alleging Defect is not the result of “user error or mistreatment, but instead a widespread, pervasive
`problem”). Plaintiffs each specify that the Defect manifested during the normal course of laptop
`use. See, e.g., id. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s redesign of the MacBooks led to
`consumer outcry when the common and widespread Defect manifested free of user error. As
`shown in the small sampling of consumer complaints, long-standing users of MacBooks specify
`that they have never had such an issue with their previous MacBooks and wish the M1 MacBooks’
`Defect had been disclosed.2 Plaintiffs’ allegations are further bolstered by Dr. Niebuhr’s analysis
`of the MacBooks’ design and his qualitative testing of the monitor’s behavior during normal use.
`Defendant’s possible alternative explanation thus does not show that the allegations are deficient,
`but instead presents an improper attempt to negate Plaintiffs’ allegations. See Special Situations
`Fund III QP, L.P. v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1109, 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
`(finding defendant’s reliance on Century Aluminum was a misplaced “attempt[] to negate the
`factual allegations” and was “inappropriate at the pleading stage”); Davidson v. Apple, Inc., 2018
`WL 2325426, at *20 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) (holding that it “need not decide at [class
`certification] stage” whether Apple is “correct” that “true cause” of defect is user error).
`Notwithstanding that Defendant’s possible alternative explanation is contrary to Plaintiffs’
`allegations, it “should be obvious that a possible alternative explanation does not destroy the
`plausibility of [Plaintiffs’] claims.” See Hough v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., 2020 WL 7227198,
`at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020); United States v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 2021 WL 4259907
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2021) (holding that requiring theory “to be perfect by eliminating all innocent
`
`2 See, e.g., FAC ¶ 108 (“No notice to me regarding the many cracked screens that have been
`reported. I have attached pictures of the computer and screen. It is clear to me that the cracks
`originate from the insufficient support the frame of the computer provides an overly thin and
`fragile screen design. I closed the computer, and when I opened it again the cracks were there.
`This M1 is my 5th Macbook purchased and I never had a screen issue. I have never placed any
`objects large or small between the computer keyboard and screen. The older computers, from
`2004, 2009, 2011 have a solid screen whereas the M1 clearly is subject to cracks, bending and
`other issues caused by failure to construct a proper frame and screen that is durable.”).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 11 of 26
`
`2.
`
`alternative explanations would contravene the holding in Twombly”); In re Juul Labs, Inc.,
`Antitrust Litig., 555 F. Supp. 3d 932, 960 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (same). In all, Defendant’s arguments
`fall flat when reviewing Plaintiffs’ allegations, in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.3
`
`
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege a Common Defect Across the
`M1 MacBook Pro and M1 MacBook Air Models
`Defendant also entirely ignores Plaintiffs’ allegations when it contends that Plaintiffs fail
`to tie the two models together.4 Well-familiar with MacBooks, Dr. Niebuhr indicates common
`design parameters for the M1 MacBooks, such as the same display and other similar components,
`including a new component that departs from prior models and that necessitated new design
`parameters. Specifically, Defendant designed the M1 MacBooks using the magic keyboard.
`Importantly, the prior models used the butterfly keyboard, which allowed for a thinner top case
`due to the low travel of the keys. FAC at ¶ 77. Because the magic keyboard has a significantly
`greater travel distance, the M1 MacBooks “had to be thicker to accommodate the new keyboard.”
`Id. As explained further below, Defendant thus made deliberate design decisions to maintain the
`thin profile of the M1 MacBooks which led to widespread display failures in both models due to
`the Clearance Defect.
`
`
`3 Defendant’s supporting cases are inapposite. In In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. &
`Sales Pracs. Litig., 2020 WL 7664461, at * 4–6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020), the plaintiffs failed to
`allege a defect across four different smartphone models because they claimed the phones were
`designed or manufactured in a “similar manner to the Note7,” but included contradictory
`allegations, and failed to allege that the other models suffered a “thermal runaway event, which
`was the primary defect of the Note7.” Here, Plaintiffs do provide factual allegations describing
`both models and their shared systematic design flaw. And unlike in Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard
`Co., Defendant has pointed to no contradictory allegation rendering Plaintiffs’ theory implausible.
`See 668 F. 3d 1136, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2012) (“But it is difficult to conceive . . . how the Laptops
`could ignite if they are ‘unable to receive an electrical charge.’”). Defendant’s other cases
`involving a lack of factual detail are also inapplicable. See Punian v. Gillette Co., 2016 WL
`1029607, at *10–13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (holding plaintiff failed to identify whether leakage
`was systematic “design or manufacturing flaw”); Pelayo v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 2021 WL
`1808628, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) (holding plaintiffs listed symptoms and pointed to
`manufacturing quality issues without tying to design flaw).
`4 As to Defendant’s incorporation request, the Knievel extension does not apply as the claims do
`not depend on the contents of those documents, and Plaintiffs’ theory of reliance (not at issue)
`extends beyond those product pages. Compare FAC ¶¶ 116-138 with id. ¶¶ 139-167. Plaintiffs
`also object to the extent Defendant asks the Court to resolve factual disputes, including product
`characterizations. See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1014 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 12 of 26
`
`Tongue in cheek, Defendant argues that a “cursory review” shows the products have a
`different design.5 MTD at 8-9. Defendant provides its own photos of the MacBooks to ostensibly
`provide some fatal comparison, but its photos conveniently show the products in different
`arrangements. See id. More importantly, Defendant strategically zeroes in on one difference in
`the design of the bottom case, as opposed to pointing to any difference in the display or other
`shared components. Defendant cannot seriously dispute the various design similarities between
`models, which Defendant itself indicates on its website.6 Significantly, Defendant made no
`distinction between the M1 MacBooks when it described the tight tolerances it designed for both
`models. See FAC ¶ 112. The Court should reject Defendant’s invitation to mischaracterize the
`allegations and resolve any factual disputes at all, and much less in Defendant’s favor, particularly
`when its own statements run contrary to the specious argument it now raises.
`Defendant next contends that the Court should at least find no plausible basis that the M1
`Air is defective absent a physical inspection of previous models. As previously noted, Defendant
`made a similar criticism that Dr. Niebuhr considered an “inadequate” sample of MacBook models
`in In Re MacBook Keyboard Litigation. Here, Dr. Niebuhr’s methodology included an inspection
`of each model at issue, including its materials, structural design, and the behavior of the monitor
`during use. Id. ¶¶ 61, 66-67. Simply because a previous MacBook Air model is not alleged to
`have been physically inspected does not mean that Dr. Niebuhr could not otherwise make
`observations about previous models, as he clearly did. Dr. Niebuhr did in fact observe that the
`similarly sized models at issue here made design changes related to the display to accommodate
`the new thicker magic keyboard. See, e.g., id. ¶ 77. An inspection of each of the previous models
`
`
`5 Defendant seizes on a single word—“superficially”—to try to undermine Plaintiffs’ allegations,
`but it wrongly assumes that the word is conveyed in its ordinary meaning, as opposed to the
`different meaning used by an engineer evaluating the models. In any event, contrary to
`Defendant’s assertion, there are allegations concerning product similarities beyond the M1 chip.
`6 See Declaration of Elvia M. Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A (noting M1 MacBook Air and M1
`MacBook Pro similarities as to retina display, pixels, display size, width, depth, and keyboard).
`See also Calhoun v. Google LLC, 526 F. Supp. 3d 605, 617 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (holding “documents
`appear on publicly available websites and are thus proper subjects for judicial notice”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 13 of 26
`
`3.
`
`is not necessary to render the allegations plausible. Though Defendant would prefer a full expert
`report at this stage, Plaintiffs have presented a plausible theory.7
`
`
`Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege the Defect Results in Display
`Failures
`Defendant’s fact-intensive challenges distorting Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations do not
`end there. Defendant contends that the allegations only “point to a laundry list of various
`components” and “do not explain how these components interact with each other to allegedly cause
`the various symptoms.” MTD at 6. Not so. As an initial matter, Defendant backtracks on its
`previous position that Plaintiffs need not “precisely” identify the “mechanical details” of the
`Defect, but instead need identify “what might cause” the symptoms. Dkt. No. 22 at 2. Defendant
`simply cannot again argue that it lacks fair notice, as Plaintiffs have more than sufficiently alleged
`the Defect and plausibly explained how it manifests the symptoms Plaintiffs experienced.
`Defendant nonetheless demands a greater level of mechanical detail than is required.8
`Plaintiffs already explain how Defendant made design decisions that resulted in an overly fragile,
`insufficiently supported display. The M1 MacBooks consist of a bottom case, a top case, and
`display, “which is supported by aluminum housing and a rubber bezel to protect the edge of the
`display from direct contact with the housing.” Id. ¶ 71. The “aluminum housing that supports the
`display must resist flex and torque, and the housing must be stiff enough to prevent any torque
`from being transferred to the display itself.” Id. ¶ 72. Importantly, the “stiffness of the case is a
`function of its thickness.” Id. But to maintain a thin profile, Defendant designed other components
`
`7 Should the Court nonetheless find the methodology wanting, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave
`to amend to allow Dr. Niebuhr sufficient time to supplement his analysis with specific references
`to previous MacBook Air models, or to otherwise provide other details about his analysis.
`8 See, e.g., Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2021 WL 1238304, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)
`(holding that “a plaintiff is not required to identify the precise cause of a defect” and noting that
`“it is typically difficult for a plaintiff to discern the mechanical workings of a product at the
`pleading stage”); Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 528 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
`(“In the context of product defect claims, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have often held that a
`complaint provides fair notice of the defect if it (1) identifies the particular part or system affected
`by the defect, and (2) describes the problems allegedly caused by the defect.”); Hardt v. Chrysler
`Grp. LLC, 2015 WL 12683965, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015) (sufficient where plaintiff
`“describe[d] symptoms of a Defect attributed generally to the Manual Transmission”); Zuehlsdorf
`v. FCA US LLC, 2019 WL 2098352, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) (sufficiently alleged defect
`even though plaintiff did “not indicate how the alleged defect caused the reported symptoms”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 48 Filed 08/12/22 Page 14 of 26
`
`and structures to be thinner—including the thin display and the low clearance between the top case
`and display, which lacks sufficient mechanical strength to prevent torque from normal use being
`transferred to the display itself, thereby resulting in display failures. Id. ¶¶ 68, 72, 73-77.
`That level of detail is sufficient, but there are even more allegations still. The display
`consists of several layers, including “filters, liquid crystals, and electrodes,” and these layers are
`“sandwiched between layers of glass.” Id. ¶ 75. Glass “is unable to deform beyond a very small
`amount (microns).” Id. Because the display of the M1 MacBook is thinner, it has less mechanical
`strength and is prone to display failures from the low clearance between the top case and thinner
`components of the display. Id. ¶¶ 76-77. The allegations show that the display is insufficiently
`supported and fra