19 Cal.App.5th 1101
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Shamrell, Rysdyk) sued Apple alleging iPhone 4/4S/5 sleep/wake (power) buttons were defectively prone to intermittent failure; claims included CLRA, Song-Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, UCL, and breach of warranty.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of two California purchaser classes limited by model and warranty period; damages theories included cost-to-repair, diminution in value (trade-in values), and disgorgement of profits.
- Plaintiffs supported class certification with expert declarations (accountant Heather Xitco for damages, statistician Fred Schenkelberg for failure rates, economist Gregory Pinsonneault, and conjoint analyst Ramamirtham Sukumar); Apple countered with expert critique (Lorin Hitt and others).
- The trial court initially requested further methodological detail, received supplemental expert declarations, and ultimately granted class certification while expressly declining to apply Sargon gatekeeping to the experts' methodologies.
- Apple petitioned for writ review arguing the trial court erred by not applying Sargon to determine admissibility of experts at the certification stage; the appellate court issued a stay and ordered briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sargon’s admissibility standard applies at class-certification | Sargon is a trial-level gatekeeping rule not required at certification; expert detail need not meet full Sargon scrutiny | Sargon applies to any expert evidence submitted to the court, including at class certification; court must exclude unreliable expert opinions | Sargon applies to expert evidence at class certification; a court may consider only admissible expert opinion evidence per Evidence Code and Sargon |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to assess experts’ methodologies under Sargon | Plaintiffs: trial court properly deferred methodological merits to trial; experts show common proof of liability/damages | Apple: refusing to apply Sargon allowed certification based on potentially unreliable, irrelevant, or speculative expert opinions | Trial court erred by declining Sargon review; that error was prejudicial because experts were central to the certification decision and likely would have been substantially limited or excluded |
| Whether plaintiffs’ damages and class‑size methodologies were sufficiently reliable to establish predominance/ascertainability | Plaintiffs: cost of repair, trade-in diminution, and conjoint analysis provide classwide measures; failure-rate and formula create class size | Apple: methodologies are unsupported, ignore postsale events, misuse data (e.g., trade-in and warranty records), and contain analytical gaps | Appellate court found reasonable probability many expert opinions/methods are unreliable under Sargon and remanded for reassessment under correct standard |
| Appropriate remedy for trial court’s error | Plaintiffs: no writ relief; errors not reversible | Apple: vacate certification and direct denial if experts fail Sargon | Court granted peremptory writ in part — vacated certification order and directed trial court to reconsider the motion applying Sargon; denied other relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Univ. of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (establishes California gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert opinion evidence)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (framework for class certification factors and predominance inquiry)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (2014) (manageability and impact of individual issues on class certification)
- Department of Fish & Game v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 1323 (2011) (trial-court consideration of basis for experts when assessing class certification evidence)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (appellate courts bound to follow Supreme Court precedent)
- College Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (1994) (prejudice standard for appellate relief)