362 F. Supp. 3d 787
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Sciacca, a Colorado resident, bought a Series 2 stainless steel Apple Watch in December 2016 and alleges its screen detached in March 2018. He brings class claims that Series 1–3 Apple Watches contain a defect causing screens to crack, shatter, or detach.
- Plaintiff alleges Apple concealed the defect and cites online consumer complaints and Apple's prior warranty extension for the First Generation Watch as evidence of Apple's knowledge.
- Causes of action: (1) UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), (2) CLRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750), (3) breach of express warranty, (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (5) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and (6) unjust enrichment (Colorado law).
- Procedural posture: Apple moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6), 9(b), and 12(b)(1). Court considered pleading specificity, fraud pleading requirements, warranty terms, and Article III standing for injunctive relief.
- Disposition: Court dismissed UCL and CLRA claims without prejudice (leave to amend); dismissed express warranty, implied warranty, Magnuson-Moss, and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice; and dismissed injunctive-relief request without prejudice (leave to amend as to standing issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCL/CLRA claims are subject to Rule 9(b) | Sciacca alleges Apple knowingly concealed a material defect and therefore fraud-based pleading applies | Apple asserts fraud-based UCL/CLRA claims must meet Rule 9(b) particularity | Court: Rule 9(b) applies to the fraud-based UCL and CLRA theories (claims grounded in concealment) |
| Whether defect was pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b) | Alleged defect causes screens to detach, crack, or shatter across Series 1–3; this suffices to identify the defect | Apple: Complaint only pleads consequences, not the specific design/manufacturing/technical defect or causation | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify the defect or its causal mechanism with requisite particularity |
| Whether alleged misrepresentations/omissions are actionable | Plaintiff contends product promotional statements were misleading because Apple omitted the defect | Apple: Plaintiff fails to plead what statements were false or how they relate to the alleged screen defect; no duty to disclose unknown defects | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead an actionable misrepresentation, and did not sufficiently allege Apple's knowledge of the defect |
| Whether plaintiff has standing for injunctive relief | Plaintiff says he risks future harm (e.g., repaired watch may fail again) and so seeks prospective relief | Apple: Alleged future harm is speculative; no certainly-impending injury | Court: Dismissed plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for lack of Article III standing (allegation of possible future injury insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) requires the who, what, when, where, and how for fraud allegations)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) applies to CLRA and UCL claims grounded in fraud)
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must plead how an alleged design defect causes the asserted harm)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (injunctive-relief standing requires certainly impending future injury)