Rasmussen v. Apple Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35352
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Rasmussen sues Apple for CLRA and UCL over a 27-inch iMac display that allegedly dims.
- Plaintiff seeks a class of all U.S. purchasers of the LG LED-backlit 27-inch iMac.
- Plaintiff purchased an iMac on August 3, 2011 for $2,259; defect manifested around December 2012 after warranty elapsed.
- Apple marketed the display as premium with a long productive life; plaintiff cites promotional videos and website claims.
- Apple moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court grants dismissal with leave to amend.
- Court also finds the class definition overbroad to include non-defectors and contemplates amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disclose a latent defect post-warranty | Rasmussen argues Apple knew of a defect and breached duty to disclose. | Apple contends no post-warranty duty unless safety issue or prior representation. | CLRA duty to disclose post-warranty not satisfied; dismissed. |
| Duty to disclose within warranty period | Defect may manifest within warranty, triggering duty to disclose. | Duty to disclose outside warranty; within warranty is separate. | Post-warranty duty required; within-warranty case not established. |
| Actionability of alleged representations (puffery vs. material misstatement) | Representations about longevity and quality are actionable facts. | Statements are puffery; not actionable as to long-term performance. | Representations deemed puffery; CLRA claim not stated. |
| Reliance and pleading standard | Plaintiff relied on Apple’s ads and videos; Rule 9(b) applied. | Need specificity on which ads were relied upon. | Court finds reliance adequately pled under Rule 9(b) with examples and sources. |
| Class definition overbreadth and standing for injunctive relief | Class includes non-defective iMac buyers; seeks injunctive relief. | Overbreadth and standing issues require narrowing; injunctive relief not addressed. | Class definition overbroad; allowed leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (post-warranty omission requires safety concerns; Daugherty interpreted)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (duty to disclose must be contrary to a prior representation or a disclosed fact)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (materiality standard; reaffirms general materiality test)
- Engalla v. L.A. Cellular Tel., 20 Cal.4th 150 (Cal. 1999) (liberal construction of California consumer protections; substantive precedent)
- Arevalo v. Bank of America Corp., 850 F.Supp.2d 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (standing to assert CLRA claims when differing class injuries)
- Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 950 F.Supp.2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (materiality and standard for CLRA/UCL omissions)