Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04942/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04942-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK 

ORDER REAFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' FLORIDA DECEPTIVE 

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK 

ORDER REAFFIRMING THE DENIAL 

OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

PLAINTIFFS' FLORIDA DECEPTIVE 

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 

ACT CLAIM

Re: Dkt. No. 291

On December 21, 2018, Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed a motion for summary 

judgment as to, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

(“FDUTPA”) claim relating to an alleged touchscreen defect in Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 

Plus. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to summary judgment on January 17, 2019. ECF No. 302 

(“Opp.”). Apple filed its reply on February 1, 2019. ECF No. 306 (“Reply”). 

On February 25, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part 

Apple’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 324. The facts, procedural history, and legal 

standard are laid out in detail in the Court’s order, so the Court need not rehash them here. In the 

Court’s February 25, 2019 order, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA

Case 5:16-cv-04942-LHK Document 333 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK 

ORDER REAFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' FLORIDA DECEPTIVE 

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim.

Here, the Court takes the opportunity to clarify its February 25, 2019 order granting in part 

and denying in part Apple’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court addresses an 

argument raised in Apple’s motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiffs’ claim under the 

FDUTPA relating to Florida Plaintiff John Borzymowski that was not explicitly addressed in the 

Court’s February 25, 2019 order. 

To state a claim under the FDUTPA, there are three elements: “(1) a deceptive act or unfair 

practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business 

Bureau of Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 169 So.3d 164, 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kertesz 

v. Net Transactions, Ltd., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). 

Apple argues that Borzymowski suffered no actual damages because he sold his defective 

iPhone 6 Plus to third-party purchaser Gazelle.com. Mot. at 22. Apple argues that through 

Borzymowski’s sale, Borzymowski received “full value” for his iPhone 6 Plus. Id. Plaintiffs argue 

that the sale of the iPhone to Gazelle.com is “irrelevant to the damage Mr. Borzymowski suffered 

when he paid full price for his iPhone containing an undisclosed defect at the point of sale.” Opp. 

at 24. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

Under Florida law, a FDUTPA claim accrues “on the date of sale.” S. Motor Co. of Date 

Cty. v. Doktorczyk, 957 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Here, Borzymowski

purchased his iPhone 6 Plus on September 19, 2014. ECF No. 172 at ¶ 12. Thus, Borzymowski’s 

FDUTPA cause of action accrued on September 19, 2014. 

Apple argues that Borzymowski suffered no actual damages. However, a FDUTPA cause 

of action’s damages “is the difference in the market value of the product or service in the 

condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have 

been delivered.” Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (emphasis 

added); see also Carriuolo v. General Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977, 986 (11th Cir. 2016) (“The 

FDUTPA damages formula calculates ‘the value of the product as promised minus the value of the 

Case 5:16-cv-04942-LHK Document 333 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK 

ORDER REAFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' FLORIDA DECEPTIVE 

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

product delivered.’”); Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 2001) 

(same). Therefore, here, damages are calculated by subtracting the value of the iPhone 6 Plus as 

promised (i.e., without the alleged touchscreen defect) minus the value of the iPhone 6 Plus as 

delivered (i.e., with the alleged touchscreen defect). Thus, the calculation of damages takes place 

at the point of sale.

Apple has put forth no evidence showing that Borzymowski suffered no damages on 

September 19, 2014, when Borzymowski purchased his iPhone 6 Plus. Tellingly, Apple cites to no 

evidence in support of its blanket assertion that Borzymowski received “full value” for his iPhone 

6 Plus from Gazelle.com. Mot. at 22. To the contrary, the Court found in the order granting in part 

and denying in part Apple’s motion for summary judgment that there was a genuine issue of 

material fact as to “whether the alleged touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge 

of its existence, and whether Apple engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice by failing to 

disclose it.” ECF No. 324 at 14. Thus, there may have been a diminution in value of the iPhone 6 

Plus as a result of the alleged touchscreen defect.

In sum, Apple’s argument that Borzymowski suffered no actual damages because he sold 

his iPhone 6 Plus to third-party Gazelle.com is unfounded in the law and facts. The Court 

reaffirms its decision denying summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ FDUTPA claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04942-LHK Document 333 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 3