Wang v. OCZ Technology Group, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119093
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Wang filed a putative class action alleging OCZ misrepresented capacity and performance of Agility 2 and Vertex 2 SSDs, leading to claimed overpayment and inferior value.
- OCZ moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) and to strike certain allegations; Wang opposed.
- Central factual theory: OCZ allegedly altered drives before the Agility 2/Vertex 2 launch, reducing user-accessible capacity and performance while preserving old advertising materials.
- Plaintiff asserts six claims: FAL, UCL, negligent misrepresentation, express warranty (Song-Beverly/CC §2313), unjust enrichment, and CLRA.
- The court held: dismiss certain equitable and heightened-pleading claims with leave to amend; deny standing challenges for general standing; deny strike of third-party content and non-purchased models at this stage.
- Court noted California-law claims may be viable given alleged conduct centered in California, despite Wang’s Washington residency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek damages and equity | Wang pleads injury-in-fact and causation from misrepresentations and seeks redress for value loss. | Injury is speculative; lacks concrete causation and reliance specifics; no ongoing future injury for equitable relief. | Standing found for injury-in-fact; injunctive relief dismissible for lack of likelihood of future injury. |
| Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud-based claims | Allegations identify OCZ as source, time frame, locations, and misrepresentations; attached materials supplement view. | Details missing on reliance, exact materials, and specific timeframes; insufficient under 9(b). | Claims subject to Rule 9(b) dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Choice of California law for out-of-state class/claims | California law should apply given alleged misrepresentations originated in California and OCZ’s California nexus. | California law inapplicable to out-of-state purchases absent nexus; due process concerns if no substantial contact. | California law deemed applicable based on alleged conduct/control from California; sufficiency at pleading stage. |
| Rule 12(f) strike of third-party content and unpurchased models | Third-party reviews and unpurchased models contextualize misrepresentations and class-wide misconditioning. | Third-party content is immaterial or inappropriate to claims; CDA immunity issues pending. | Strike of third-party content and unpurchased-model allegations denied as premature/improper at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury with causation and redressability)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (pleading specifics required to meet fraud-related pleading standards)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (choice-of-law principles and due process considerations for class actions)
- Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1036 (Cal. 1999) (California law on misrepresentation and consumer protections in state context)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (internet-era misrepresentation and publisher liability framework)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (motion to strike is disfavored and limited to clearly immaterial matters)