Minkler v. Apple, Inc.
65 F. Supp. 3d 810
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Apple released iOS 6 and Apple Maps in Sept. 2012; Maps had widespread accuracy problems disclosed by Apple statements and apology letters.
- Plaintiff bought an iPhone 5 (date unspecified) and alleges purchase was induced by Apple’s marketing touting Maps; she claims Maps led her to incorrect locations shortly after purchase.
- iPhone 5 came with a one-year Hardware Warranty that explicitly excludes software and disclaims implied warranties; the Software Licensing Agreement disclaims Maps warranties and states Maps is provided "as is."
- Plaintiff sued on behalf of a putative class alleging breach of express and implied warranties, MMWA violation, CLRA, FAL, UCL, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Apple moved to dismiss under Rules 8/9(b) and state law requirements: failure to plead pre-suit notice for warranty claims, disclaimers bar implied warranties, fraud claims lack Rule 9(b) particularity, and negligent misrepresentation is barred by California’s economic-loss rule.
- The Court granted dismissal with leave to amend, finding multiple pleading failures (notice, particularity, failure to allege injury/timeframe) but allowed amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty (notice & scope) | Plaintiff relied on Apple’s marketing and statements as express warranties and alleges counsel sent pre-suit notice | Apple: plaintiff did not plead pre-suit notice within a reasonable time; Hardware Warranty excludes software/Maps so no express warranty | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead required pre-suit notice and did not identify an applicable express warranty |
| Breach of implied warranty | Devices impliedly merchantable and fit for ordinary purpose including navigation | Apple: implied warranties were conspicuously disclaimed in Hardware Warranty and Software License; plaintiff failed to allege fundamental defect or that navigation is iPhone’s ordinary purpose | Dismissed — disclaimers effective and plaintiff failed to allege a fundamental defect or ordinary-purpose failure |
| MMWA claim | MMWA violation based on alleged state-law warranties | Apple: MMWA claim depends on valid state-law warranty claims | Dismissed — MMWA claim fails because underlying state warranty claims fail |
| CLRA, UCL, FAL (fraud-based claims) | Apple misrepresented Maps accuracy and improvement, inducing purchase | Apple: claims are fraud-based and must satisfy Rule 9(b); plaintiff fails to plead who/what/when/where/how with particularity | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead the specific misrepresentations or particular circumstances required by Rule 9(b) |
| Negligent misrepresentation / economic loss | Economic loss from overpayment due to misrepresentations | Apple: pure economic loss barred absent personal injury, property damage, special relationship or exception | Dismissed — plaintiff alleges only economic loss, barred by California law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleaded facts must support plausibility; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., 59 Cal.2d 57 (notice requirement exception for buyers who did not deal with manufacturer)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (fraud-based consumer claims subject to Rule 9(b) particularity)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (MMWA claim rises or falls with state-law warranty claims)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)