Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc
Defendant
Uriel Marcus
Plaintiff
Benedict Verceles
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

URIEL MARCUS, BENEDICT

VERCELES, and Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 14-03824 WHA

REQUEST FOR 

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

One of the new and potentially important changes in the proposed pleading is the

overheating safety concern. One example is given in the email appended as Exhibit 2. 

The pleading asserts that several absent class members have told counsel similar things

(PAC ¶ 51). 

By NOON on WEDNESDAY MARCH 4, plaintiffs’ counsel shall specify their best detail

as to these other examples of injuries to absent class members, citing the same level of detail as

in the email. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall also explain why the pleading does not set forth a technical

analysis of the alleged defect, since before suing, an expert could have examined a unit and

analyzed the extent to which the heat sink and fan are substandard. 

By NOON on THURSDAY MARCH 5, both sides shall file memos up to ten pages (double

spaced, no footnotes or attachments) setting forth the law on the extent to which a technical

analysis should be required in a pleading like this and analyzing the extent to which a single

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 56 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

incident involving a stranger to the litigation can be plausibly deemed to mean the units

purchased by our two plaintiffs had the same problem. Put differently as to the latter point, the

Court is concerned that we should perhaps not read too much into a single, one-off incident. 

What is the law on this at the Rule 12 stage? And, a recent decision by Judge Virginia Phillips,

Sater et al., v. Chrysler Group LLC., No. EDCV 14-00700-VAP, 2015 WL 736273, at *6–7

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015), discusses the significance of Mexia. Please explain the relevance of

the decision by Judge Virginia Phillips to our case and include this discussion in the memo due

on March 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 56 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 2