637 F. App'x 414
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action alleging Apple’s iPhone 4S advertising (demonstrating Siri) misrepresented Siri’s functionality and deceived consumers.
- Claims pleaded: California CLRA, FAL, UCL, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)) and for failing to state a plausible claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
- Plaintiffs primarily pointed to Apple’s commercials and product demonstrations to show Siri would perform particular functions.
- Plaintiffs alleged Siri often failed to perform as shown; they did not specify a quantifiable rate of failure or define precise expectations of consistency.
- Plaintiffs elected to stand on the amended complaint; dismissal with prejudice followed. Cost award to appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are pleaded with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) | Plaintiffs say the complaint identifies specific advertised Siri functions and alleges Siri does not perform them as shown | Apple says the complaint fails to plead who, what, when, where, and how the statements were fraudulent or how often Siri failed | Held: Plaintiffs failed Rule 9(b) — allegations lack specifics about how/why statements were false or fraudulent |
| Whether claims satisfy Rule 8(a) plausibility / reasonable consumer test | Plaintiffs say commercials conveyed specific capabilities such that a reasonable consumer would be misled | Apple says plaintiffs never defined the level of consistency represented or expected, so deception is not plausibly alleged | Held: Plaintiffs fail Rule 8(a); cannot show a reasonable consumer would be misled |
| Whether consumer statutes (CLRA, FAL, UCL) here sound in fraud and thus trigger heightened pleading | Plaintiffs argue statutes do not require fraud as an element; complaint alleges misleading conduct | Apple argues the claims are grounded in fraud and thus subject to Rule 9(b) | Held: Court applies Rule 9(b) because claims are grounded in alleged fraudulent conduct |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiffs sought leave or further amendment implicitly by opposing dismissal | Apple notes plaintiffs stood on amended complaint | Held: No abuse — plaintiffs elected to stand on the complaint, so dismissal with prejudice was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.) (claims grounded in fraud trigger Rule 9(b))
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) applies when plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct under California consumer statutes)
- Cafasso ex rel. United States v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) requires pleading the who, what, when, where, and how of fraud)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard under Rule 8(a))
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.) (reasonable consumer test for deception under California consumer law)
- Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.) (stand-on-complaint rule and dismissal with prejudice)