N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALEX TOM EK, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. APPLE INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16696 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02700-M C EDAD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and IKUTA a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Ale x Tom e k a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Apple Inc .’ s
m otion to dism

iss for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure (“ R ule ” ) 12(b)(6) a

n d fa ilure to ple a d

fra ud with pa

rtic ula rity unde r R ule 9(b). W e 

# F IL ED
JAN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion ove r the distric t c ourt’ s fina l orde r of dismissa l pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, se eSc ott v . Ev e rsole Mortuary , 522 F.2d 1110, 1112 (9th C ir. 1975), a nd re v ie w de novo dismissa l of a c om p la int pursua

nt to R ule 12(b)(6) a

nd R ule 9(b), se eK

e arns v . Ford Motor C

o. , 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm
. I C ontra ry to Apple ’ s a sse rtions, Tom e k ha s both c o nstitutiona l a nd sta tutory sta nding. C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w (“ UC L” ) statutory sta

nding is

“ m ore re stric tive ” tha

n Artic le III sta

nding be c a

u se the injury

m ust be e c onom ic , but “ the qua

ntum of lost m one y

or prope rty

ne c e s sa ry to show sta

n ding is only

so
m uc h a s would suffic e to e sta blish [Artic le III] injury

in fa c t .” K

w ik se t C o rp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 246 P.3d 877, 886 (C a l . 2009). “ [P] la intiffs who c an truthfully
a lle ge the y we re de c e ive d by a [c om pa ny ’ s re pre se ntations] into spe nding m one y to purc ha se [a ] produc t, a nd would not ha

ve purc ha se d it othe rwise ,” suc h a s Tom e k, have suffe re d a

n e c onom ic injury

suffic ie nt to c onfe r sta

nding under the UC L a nd Artic le III of the C onstitution. Se e id. at 881, 866; Hinojos v . K ohl’s C orp. , 718 F.3d 1098, 1104 n.4 (9th C ir. 2013).II

The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing Tome k’ s c la im s for viola tions of C a lifornia ’ s C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t (“ C LR A” ) a nd the UC L, a

nd his
c om m on la w c la im s of fra

udule nt c onc e a lm e nt a

nd inte ntiona l m isre pre se ntation. Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 9(b) re quire s tha t a ll a ve rm e nts of fra

ud m ust be
m a de with pa

rtic ula rity . R e ga

rdle ss of thetitlegive n to a pa rtic ula r c la im , a lle gations grounde d in fra ud a re subje c t to R

ule 9(b)’ s ple a ding re q

uire m e nts. Ve ss v . C iba-Ge igy C orp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097, 1103–04 (9th C ir. 2003). R ule 9(b)
a pplie s to UC L a

nd C LR A c la im s “ grounde d in fra u d.” K e arns , 567 F.3d a

t 1125–27.

“ To survivea

m otion to dism

iss, a c om pla i nt m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c tua l
m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to ‘ sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usibleon its fa c e .’ ” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Be ll Atl. C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “ Ave rm e nts of fra

ud m ust be a c c om

pa nie d by ‘ the who, wha t, whe n , whe re , and how’ of the m isc o nduc t c ha rge d.” Ve ss , 317 F.3d a

t 1106 (quoting C

oope r v . Pic k

e tt , 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th C i r. 1997)). Unde r the C LR

A, C a l. C iv. C ode § 1770, “ pla intiffs m

ust suffic ie ntly

a lle ge that a de fe nda nt wa s a w are of [the unfa ir pra c tic e ] at the tim e of sa l e to survivea
m otion to dism

iss.” W ilson v . He w le tt-Pac k

ard C o. , 668 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th C ir. 2012). “ Pla intiffs’ UC L c la im [s] a l so re quire [] tha t the y a lle ge [the se l le r’ s]knowle dge of a de fe c t.” Id. (ana ly z ing unla wful prong); se ealso id. n.5 (a p ply ing sim ila r ana l y sis to the

UC L’ s unfa ir a

nd fra u dule nt prongs). C om

m on la w c la im s for fraudule nt c onc e a l m e nt a n d inte ntiona l m isre p re se ntat ion like wise re quire tha t the d e fe nda

nt kne w of the m ate ria l fa c t a nd e ithe r m i sre pre se nte d

or c onc e a le d tha

t fa c t to induc e re lia

nc e by the pla intiff. Se eDoev . Supe rior C ourt , 237 C a l. App. 4th 239, 244 (C a l. C t. App. 2015) (listing e le m e nts for fra udule nt c onc e a lm e nt); C hapman v . Sk

y pe , Inc
. , 220 C a l. App. 4th 217, 230–31 (C a l. C t. App. 2013) (listing e le m e nts for inte ntiona l m isre pre se ntation). Tom e k ha s not a lle g e d spe c ific fa c ts tha t “ a llow[] the c ourt to dra w the
re a s ona ble infe re nc e ” tha

t Apple kne w it wa s issuing m isle a ding a dve rtise m e nts a t the t im e Tom e k purc ha se d his la ptop. Se eIqbal , 556 U.S. a t 678; W ilson , 668 F.3d
at 1146–47 (dism

issing suit whe

n pla intiff m a de “ m e re ly

c onc lusory ” a lle gations
re ga rding thede fe nda

nt’ s knowle dge ). Tom e k’ s re fe re nc e s to c ustom e r c om pla ints do not c ure this de fe c t be c a use those c om

pla ints we re poste d a fte r Tom e k purc ha se d his M a c B ook Pro. W ilson , 668 F.3d at 1147–48. Further, the late re vide nc e te nde re d to show tha t Apple re l e a se d a

patc h solving the

issue doe s not show knowle d ge of the de fe c t at the tim e of sa le
. 1 III The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing the C LR

A, UC L , fraudule nt c onc e a lm e nt, a n d inte ntiona l m isre pre se ntat ion c la im s without le ave to
am e nd the c om

pla int. Thedistric t c ourt re a sona bly c onc l ude d furthe r am e ndm e nts would befutile be c a

use Tom e k ha d a lre a dy

file d thre e am e nde d

c om pla i nts. Se e Sate riale v . RJ Re y nolds Tobac c o C

o. , 697 F.3d 777, 794 (9th C ir. 2012).

AFFIRM E D.

1 The distric t c ourt a lso c onc lude d a s a m atte r of la

w tha t the la ngua ge of the a dve rtise m e nts would not de c e i ve a re a sona b le c o nsum e r. W e have he ld tha t it is unre a s ona

ble for c onsum e rs to re ly

sole ly on sta te m e nts of “

puffe ry ,” or ge n e ra l a sse rtions of produc t supe riority
. Se e W i lliams v . Ge rbe r Prods. C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 939 n.3 (9th C ir. 2008); se ealso C ook , Pe rk iss &Lie he

, Inc . v . N
. C al. C olle c tion Se rv . Inc
. , 911 F.2d 242, 245–46 (9th C ir. 1990) (pe r c uriam ) (c onc l uding tha

t a n a dve rtise m e nt c onsiste d of ina c tiona ble puffe ry

unde r the Lanha m Ac t on re vie w from

a R ule 12(b)(6) dismissa l). Apple ’ s a d ve rtise m e nts prim arily c o nsiste d of suc h “p uffe ry .” Additionally , in a n unpublishe d opinion, we c onc lude d tha

t a dve rtise m e nts simila

r to the one s at issuehe re tha t inc lude “ up to” spe e d qua lifie rs would not de c e ive re a sona ble c onsum e rs. S

e eMalone

y v . Ve rizon Inte rne t Se rv

s., Inc
. , 413 F. App’ x 997, 999 (9th C ir. Fe b. 16, 2011).Tome k

v . Apple Inc
. , No. 13-16696 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: C a lifornia c ourts ha ve be e n e x tre m e ly ge ne rous to plaintiffs bringing c la im s unde r the “ fraudule nt prong”of C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w (UC L), whic h prohibits a

ny “ fraudule nt busine s s a c t or pra c tic e .” C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200. Unlike

a pla intiff bringing a

c l a im of c om m on la w fra ud, a pa rty bringing a

UC L fra ud c la im ne e d not a lle ge tha

t the de fe nda

nt’ s a c t ions we re

“ a c tua lly fa lse , known to befa lse by the pe rpe t

rator a nd re a sona

b ly re lie d upon by
a vic tim who inc urs da

m a ge s.” Morgan v . AT& T W ire le ss Se rv s., Inc
. , 177 C a l. App. 4th 1235, 1255 (2009) (quoting In reTobac c o II C ase s , 46 C a l. 4th 298, 312 (2009)). R athe r, the pla intiff ne e d m e re ly a lle ge tha

t the de fe nda

nt e nga ge d in a busine ss pra c tic e “ t

hat is like l y

to de c e ive m e m

be rs of the public .” Id . Unle ss the
c ourt c an sa

y “ a s a m atte r of la

w tha t c ontra ry to the c om

p la int's a lle gations,
m e m b e rs of the public we re not like ly to be de c e i ve d or m isle d” by the de fe nda

nt’ s re pre se ntations, thepla intiff ha s sta te d a c a u se of a c tion. Id. at 1257 ( quoting Day
v . AT& T C

o rp. , 63 C a l. App. 4th 325, 333 (1998)). In the c om

pla int be fore us, Tom e k a l le ge s tha t Apple a d

ve rtise d the M a c B ook Pro a s suita

ble for c e rta in proc e ssor-inte nsive ta sks, suc h a s “ high pe rform a nc e gam ing, pro vide o e diting a nd gra p hic inte nsive a

pplic ations.” Apple 

# F IL ED
JAN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1c a lls the se re pre s e ntations m e re puffe ry and points to disc la im e rs in its a d ve rtising. B ut, c ontra

ry to the m a jority ’ s a na ly s is, M a

j . Op. a t 5 n.1, e ve n puffe ry

is
a c tiona ble unde r the UC L fra

udule nt prong so long a s it c o uld de c e i ve a re a sona ble
c onsum e r. Morgan , 177 C a l. App. 4th a t 1255–56; W

illiams v . Ge rbe r

Produc ts C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 939 n.3 (9th C ir. 2008) (noting tha t e ve n sta te m e nts c onstituting puffe ry on the ir own c annot be dism isse d whe n the y c ontributeto the de c e ptive
c onte xt a s a

whole ). 1 And we have long he ld tha t a de fe nda nt’ s disc la im e rs do not pe r se de fe at a c l a im

tha t the public m a

y be de c e i ve d, se eW

illiams v
. Ge rbe r , 552 F.3d at 939–940. Tome k’ s c o m pla int furthe r a lle ge s tha

t the M a c B ook Pro is unsuita ble for the se proc e ssor-inte nsive ta sks, be c a u se its 85-wa

tt a da pte r is insuffic ie nt to powe r, without dra m atic a lly slowing or shutting itse

lf down, the powe r-inte n sive a

p p lic ations tha

t Apple re p re se nts thec om pute r pe rform s fa ste r
and m ore e ffic ie ntly

tha n its pre de c e ssors. Fina lly , the c om pla i nt a l le ge s tha

t Apple ’ s re pre se ntations we re like ly to de c e ive the public , c iting to c onsum e rs’
c om pla i nts a bout theM a c B ook’ s ba

tte ry life
. B e c a use Tom e k ha s pla

usibly a lle ge d tha t Apple e n ga ge d in a

busine ss

1 The m a jority ’ s re lia

nc e on C ook , Pe rk i ss &Lie he

, Inc . v . N . C al. C olle c tion Se rv . Inc
. , 911 F.2d 242, 245–46 (9th C ir. 1990), is m ispla c e d. B e c a

use tha t c a se c onside re d “puffe ry ” in the c onte xt of a La nha m Ac t c la i m , it she ds no light on C a lifornia ’ s inte rpre tation of theUC L fra udule nt prong. 2pra c tic e “ that is like ly to de c e ive m e m

be rs of the public , ” M

organ, 177 C a l. App. 4th a t 1255, heha s suc c e e de d in sta ting a c la im unde r the fra

udule nt prong of the UC L. In holding othe

rwise , the m a

jority e rrone ously

re quire s Tom e k to a l le ge tha t Apple “ wa s a

ware of the unfa ir pra c tic e at the tim e of sa le , ” W ilson v . He w le ttPac k ard C o. , 668 F.3d 1136, 1145–46 (9th C ir. 2012), se e M a j. Op. a t 3–4, but the UC L fra udule nt prong ha s no suc h re quire m e nt, s e eMorgan , 177 C a l. App. 4th a t 1255. I would the

re fore re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting Apple ’ s m otion to dismiss this c la im

for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im
.

3