Frenzel v. Aliphcom
76 F. Supp. 3d 999
| N.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- Frenzel sues Jawbone (dba Jawbone) for allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations to induce purchase of Jawbone UP fitness-tracker.
- Jawbone moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing California choice-of-law precludes claims and that pleading is deficient.
- Frenzel purchased a second-generation Jawbone UP in November 2012; he is a Missouri resident who bought outside California.
- Alleged misrepresentations concern battery life and product function; Frenzel seeks national class status and damages/injunctive relief.
- Court applies Mazza governmental-interest framework to determine governing law and class law application; concludes California law does not apply to nonresidents.
- The court grants dismissal with leave to amend on various grounds, including choice-of-law, Rule 9(b) pleading deficiencies, standing for injunctive relief, and CLRA notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frenzel’s claims are governed by California law under Mazza. | Frenzel argues Mazza is premature and California law should apply. | Jawbone contends Mazza requires governing law by where purchased, likely not California. | Yes; Frenzel claims are governed by non-California law; dismissal with leave to amend. |
| Whether California choice-of-law analysis should apply at pleading stage. | Frenzel requests delaying choice-of-law analysis to class-certification stage. | Jawbone argues for immediate analysis under Mazza due to nonresident purchase. | Choice-of-law analysis applied at pleading stage; Mazza controls. |
| Whether the CLRA/UCL/FAL claims are sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b). | Frenzel contends detailed misrepresentation theories exist and reliance shown. | Jawbone asserts lack of particularized, actionable misrepresentations and reliance specifics. | Dismissed with leave to amend for Rule 9(b) deficiencies. |
| Whether Frenzel has standing for injunctive relief. | Frenzel seeks injunctive relief for ongoing consumer protection harm. | Standing requires likelihood of future purchase; Frenzel not likely to buy again. | Injunctive relief claims dismissed without leave to amend. |
| Whether CLRA damages claims based on first-gen and UP24 notices are proper given CLRA notice requirements. | Frenzel argues notice covers all Jawbone UP generations as substantially similar. | Notice must specify each product; first-gen and UP24 not adequately identified. | Damages claims based on first-gen and UP24 dismissed with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (each class member’s claim governed by transaction-state law under governmental-interest test)
- McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 48 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (California choice-of-law analysis requires weighing true conflicts and interests)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) requires explicit circumstances of misrepresentation and reliance)
- Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc., 924 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (‘up to’ battery-life representations may be actionable under consumer protection laws)
- In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (contract-related choice-of-law principles do not extend to non-contractual consumer claims)