12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
A
PPLE
I
NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ONSOLIDATED
C
LASS
A
CTION
C
OMPLAINT
M
ASTER
F
ILE
N
O
.
4:12-
CV
-01127-CW
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363glees@gibsondunn.comGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP333 South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071-3197Telephone: 213.229.7000Facsimile: 213.229.7520MATTHEW S. KAHN, SBN 261679mkahn@gibsondunn.comBENJAMIN M. GLICKMAN, SBN 247907 bglickman@gibsondunn.comGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP555 Mission Street, Suite 3000San Francisco, CA 94105-2933Telephone: 415.393.8200Facsimile: 415.393.8306Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAOAKLAND DIVISIONIn re iPHONE 4S CONSUMER LITIGATION ______________________________________ This Document Relates To:ALL ACTIONS.Master File No. 4:12-cv-01127-CWCLASS ACTION
APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATEDCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION[REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;DECLARATION OF SCOTT MAIER; AND[PROPOSED] ORDERS FILEDCONCURRENTLY]
Hearing Date: June 21, 2012Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.Location: Courtroom 2, 4th Floor Judge:The Honorable Claudia Wilken
Case4:12-cv-01127-CW Document32 Filed05/10/12 Page1 of 32
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagei
A
PPLE
I
NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ONSOLIDATED
C
LASS
A
CTION
C
OMPLAINT
M
ASTER
F
ILE
N
O
.
4:12-
CV
-01127-CW
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .............................................................................................. 1
I.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...................................................................................................... 1
II.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4
A.
iPhone 4S And Its Siri Software ................................................................................... 4
B.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations ................................................................................................... 6
1.
Frank M. Fazio .................................................................................................. 6
2.
Carlisa S. Hamagaki .......................................................................................... 7
3.
Daniel M. Balassone ......................................................................................... 8
4.
Benjamin Swartzman ........................................................................................ 9
IV.
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9
A.
Legal Standard .............................................................................................................. 9
B.
Out-Of-State Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Pursue UCL, FAL, And CLRAClaims ......................................................................................................................... 10
C.
Plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, CLRA, And Misrepresentation Claims Fail To SatisfyRule 9(b) ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.
Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Any Misrepresentation With Particularity .............. 12
2.
Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Reliance With Particularity ..................................... 15
D.
Plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, CLRA, And Misrepresentation Claims Fail To State AClaim Under Rule 12(b)(6) Because They Are Premised On A SelectiveReading Of The Challenged Representations And Rely On Non-ActionableStatements ................................................................................................................... 16
E.
Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail Under Rule 12(b)(6) For Additional Reasons ........................ 17
1.
Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under The UCL........................................... 18
2.
Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under The CLRA ........................................ 20
3.
Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Breach Of Express Warranty ................ 20
Case4:12-cv-01127-CW Document32 Filed05/10/12 Page2 of 32
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS(
continued
)
Pageii
A
PPLE
I
NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ONSOLIDATED
C
LASS
A
CTION
C
OMPLAINT
M
ASTER
F
ILE
N
O
.
4:12-
CV
-01127-CW
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
4.
Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Breach Of Implied Warranty ................ 22
5.
Plaintiffs’ Failure To State A Claim For Breach Of Warranty Under State Law Necessarily Constitutes A Failure To State A Claim Under The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ................................................................ 24
6.
Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Unjust Enrichment ................................ 24
V.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 25
Case4:12-cv-01127-CW Document32 Filed05/10/12 Page3 of 32
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
