Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.
Decision Date | 19 July 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 5:20-cv-03122-EJD |
Citation | 549 F.Supp.3d 1033 |
Parties | Mahan TALESHPOUR, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Alexander Russell Wheeler, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris, John Michael Bickford, Parris Law Firm, Lancaster, CA, for Plaintiff.
David Ramraj Singh, Shawn C. McNulty, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 68
Plaintiffs Mahan Taleshpour, Rory Fielding, Peter Odogwu, Wade Buscher, Gregory Knutson, Darien Hayes, Liam Stewart, Nathan Combs, and Kendall Bardin bring this action against Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") on behalf of themselves and members of a putative class, asserting eleven claims related to an alleged product defect in certain MacBook Pro laptops. Before the Court is Apple's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). Mot. to Dismiss Third Am. Compl. ("Mot."), Dkt. No. 68. The Court finds the motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion with limited leave to amend.
In 2016, Apple introduced its updated 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro models. Third Am. Compl. ("TAC"), Dkt. No. 66 ¶ 17. To make these MacBook Pros thinner and sleeker than their predecessors, Apple used thin, flexible backlight ribbon cables to connect the lighting mechanism of the display screen to the display controller board. Id. ¶ 18. These backlight ribbon cables wrap around the display controller board at the hinge of the laptop and are secured by a pair of spring-loaded covers. Id.
This configuration causes the backlight ribbon display cables rub against the control board when the laptop is opened and closed. Id. ¶ 20. Over time, the rubbing causes the cables to tear, which leads to various problems with the display screen. Id. For example, the tearing of the cable can cause a "stage lighting" effect, consisting of alternating patches of darkness along the bottom of the display. Id. ¶ 21. Further tearing can lead to more serious display issues, such as large blocks of color that obscure portions of the screen, and eventually, can cause the display to fail entirely. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. To varying degrees, these issues with the display screen all allegedly render the laptop unusable and unfit for its ordinary purpose. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that the backlight cables tear because they are "too short and do not provide enough slack to withstand the repetitive opening and closing of the MacBook Pros" (the "Alleged Defect"). Id. ¶ 20. Faced with complaints from numerous consumers about the stage lighting effect and the failure of the display, Apple attempted to remedy the Alleged Defect by making the backlight cables two millimeters longer in the 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pro models released in July 2018. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32.
In May 2019, Apple also introduced the "MacBook Pro Display Backlight Service Program," through which Apple agreed to replace the display on all 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pro models that exhibited the stage lighting effect or a total failure of the display backlight system. Id. ¶ 33. Under the service program, Apple will refund the owner of a 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pro who paid to have the display fixed. Id. The service program covers only the 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pro; it does not cover the 15-inch MacBook Pro, or any MacBook Pro model released after 2016. Id.
Plaintiffs are all owners of 15-inch 2016 MacBook Pro or MacBook Pro models released after 2016 and allege that their laptops all suffered from the same backlight cable defect as the 13-inch version. Id. ¶¶ 35, 41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76. Plaintiffs all experienced issues with their display screens, including the stage lighting effect or "vertical pink lines," which ultimately rendered their laptops inoperable. Id. ¶¶ 37, 43, 48, 53-54, 58-59, 63-64, 68, 73-74, 78-79. In all cases, these issues manifested after the one-year warranty Apple provided expired. Compare id. ¶¶ 35, 41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76 with id. ¶¶ 37, 43, 48, 53-54, 58-59, 63-64, 68, 73-74, 78-79.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead each claim with enough specificity to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). A complaint which falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may therefore be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). When deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all "well pleaded factual allegations" and determine whether the allegations "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The Court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States , 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
A court generally may not consider any material beyond the pleadings when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. If matters outside the pleadings are considered, "the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). However, documents appended to the complaint, incorporated by reference in the complaint, or which properly are the subject of judicial notice may be considered along with the complaint when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics , 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018) ; see also Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc. , 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). Likewise, a court may consider matters that are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Roca v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 15-cv-02147-KAW, 2016 WL 368153, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ).
Consumer protection claims that sound in fraud are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003) ; San Miguel v. HP Inc. , 317 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Rule 9(b) requires that "a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The circumstances constituting the fraud must be "specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong." Semegen v. Weidner , 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985). Therefore, a party alleging fraud must set forth "the who, what, when, where, and how" of the misconduct. Vess , 317 F.3d at 1106 (quoting Cooper v. Pickett , 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997) ). "[I]n a case where fraud is not an essential element of a claim, only allegations ... of fraudulent conduct must satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b)" while "[a]llegations of non-fraudulent conduct need satisfy only the ordinary notice pleading standards of Rule 8(a)." Id. at 1104–05.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ omissions-based fraud claims, "the pleading standard is lowered on account of the reduced ability in an omission suit ‘to specify the time, place, and specific content, relative to a claim involving affirmative misrepresentations.’ " Barrett v. Apple Inc. , No. 5:20-CV04812-EJD, 523 F.Supp.3d 1132, 1145 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2021) (quoting In re Apple & AT & TM Antitrust Litig. , 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1310 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ); see also Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Plaintiffs bring claims for: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. ("UCL") (Count 1), (2) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1761 and 1770 ("CLRA") (Count 2), and (3) equivalent deceptive trade practice laws in Alaska, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington (Counts 4-11) (collectively, "the Deceptive Trade Practice Claims"); and (4) fraudulent concealment (Count 3). Apple seeks to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court addresses each claim in turn.
Plaintiffs allege with respect to each of their fraud claims that Apple committed fraud through affirmative representations in its 2016 promotional campaign for MacBook Pros. The TAC includes the same allegations from the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") concerning Apple's description of the displays on the relevant MacBook Pro models as the "brightest and most colorful Retina display yet," as well as an advertisement and an October 27, 2016 press release stating that the new MacBook Pros had "the best Mac display ever." Compare TAC ¶ 17 with Dkt. No. 30 ¶ 16. The TAC also includes new allegations of affirmative representations, specifically that: (1) Apple's promotional campaign stressed that the new display screens are the best in the computer industry (TAC ¶ 17); (2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial