1

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

CHRISTINA GRACE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 174, 233

Plaintiffs Christina Grace (“Grace”) and Ken Potter (“Potter”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

bring this putative class action against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) for trespass to chattels and

violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the

report of Apple’s technical expert. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law,

and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background
2

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

1. Apple’s iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S and Apple’s FaceTime

Apple is the designer, seller, and manufacturer of the iPhone smartphone. ECF No. 36

(First Amended Complaint, or “FAC”) ¶ 29. Apple released the iPhone 4 device on June 7, 2010.

Id. ¶ 31. Apple released the iPhone 4S device on October 14, 2011. Id. ¶ 32.

All iPhones, including the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, operate through a mobile operating

system known as iOS. Id. ¶ 34. iOS runs the features and applications of the iPhone. Id. Prior to

September 13, 2013—the day that Apple released the “iOS 7” operating system, which is

discussed further below— iPhones operated on the “iOS 6” operating system or an earlier iOS

operating system. See, e.g., ¶ 9–10.

The iPhone 4 was the first iPhone device to offer a feature known as “FaceTime.” Id. ¶ 37.

FaceTime is a video conferencing feature that allows iPhone users to communicate via video calls,

as opposed to traditional audio calls. Id. Apple’s press releases about the iPhone 4 described the

iPhone 4 as “the new iPhone 4 featuring FaceTime.” Id. In addition, FaceTime was featured

prominently in Apple’s advertising campaign for the iPhone 4. Id. ¶ 38. “[S]everal of Apple’s

television advertisements for the iPhone 4 focused exclusively on FaceTime” and FaceTime’s

ability to “bridge the gap between friends and loved ones no matter the geographic distance

between them.” Id. For example, an iPhone 4 advertisement depicted a deployed solider using

FaceTime to view his pregnant wife’s sonogram appointment, and a hearing-impaired couple

communicating over FaceTime in sign language. Id. ¶¶ 39–40.

Prior to November 2012, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices used two methods to connect a

FaceTime call: (1) the peer-to-peer method, and (2) the relay method. Id. ¶ 52. “[T]he two

connection methods would occur in parallel, and the call would be connected through whichever

method achieved a connection first.” Id. ¶ 55. The call would connect through the peer-to-peer

method approximately 90 to 95% of the time. Id. Through the peer-to-peer method, the caller and

callee exchanged data directly between each other over the internet. Id. ¶ 53.

“[S]ometimes, however, it was not possible to connect a FaceTime call through the peer-
3

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

to-peer method,” and thus the FaceTime call would instead connect through the relay method. Id.

¶ 54. Through the relay method, the caller and the callee connected to a relay server that relayed

the data on behalf of the devices. Id. ¶ 5. Apple used servers from a company called Akamai

Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”), to relay FaceTime calls through the relay method. Id. Akamai

charged Apple fees based on the amount of FaceTime calls that connected through Akamai’s

servers. Id. ¶¶ 5, 59. Accordingly, if a low number of FaceTime calls connected through the relay

method, Apple paid Akamai a lower fee than if a higher number of FaceTime calls connected

through the relay method. Id.

a. Patent Infringement Trial and Apple’s Transition to Only the Relay Method

On November 7, 2012, a jury found that Apple’s use of the peer-to-peer method to connect

FaceTime calls infringed patents owned by VirnetX, Inc. (“VirnetX”). Id. ¶ 61. Indeed, due to the

willful nature of Apple’s infringement, the jury ordered Apple to pay an ongoing royalty to

VirnetX that was higher than the effective royalty for use of VirnetX’s patents. Id.

In order to avoid paying royalty fees to VirnetX for use of VirnetX’s patents, Apple

eliminated the peer-to-peer method for FaceTime calls. Id. ¶ 61. Thus, all FaceTime calls on

devices using iOS 6 or earlier operating systems connected via the relay method 100% of the time.

Id. However, Apple’s shift to the relay only method meant that Apple’s fees to use Akamai’s relay

servers increased substantially. Id. ¶ 62. According to the FAC, internal Apple emails show that

Apple’s switch to the relay only method for FaceTime calls caused Apple’s fees to Akamai to

increase substantially. Id.

b. Introduction of iOS 7

As a result of Apple’s mounting relay fees, Apple began to explore options for decreasing

relay usage for FaceTime calls. Id. ¶ 65. On September 13, 2013, Apple released a new operating

system, iOS 7. Id. ¶ 67. Unlike iOS 6 and earlier operating systems, iOS 7 allowed users to

connect a FaceTime call using a peer-to-peer method that had not yet been found to infringe

VirnetX’s patents. Id. ¶ 68. Thus, the introduction of iOS 7 provided Apple with a way to avoid
4

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

the millions of dollars in increased relay fees that Apple was paying to Akamai. Id.

Problematically, however, the introduction of iOS 7 only reduced relay usage to the extent

that iPhone users who were operating iOS 6 or earlier operating systems voluntarily transitioned to

iOS 7. Id. ¶ 68. The upgrade to iOS 7 was free of cost. Nonetheless, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users

were reluctant to switch to iOS 7. Specifically, “iOS7 was a more robust and powerful operating

system that acted as a significant drain on the processing capability of any device on which it ran.”

Id. ¶ 71. Although new iPhone devices, such as the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5C, “were designed to

include a more powerful processor in order to function properly with iOS7,” the iPhone 4 and

iPhone 4S devices were not designed with processors that could handle the upgrade to iOS 7. Id.

¶¶ 71–72.

According to the FAC, “transitioning to iOS7 on an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S significantly

impaired” the device’s functionality. Id. ¶ 72. For example, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices that

transitioned to iOS 7 experienced problems such as “non-responsiveness, keyboard sluggishness,

extremely slow app[lication] launching and device crashes.” Id. ¶ 72. Plaintiffs also allege that

“[f]or a sizeable portion of the iPhone 4 and 4S population, a defect in iOS7 meant that

transitioning to iOS7 would prevent [iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users] from accessing Wi-Fi and/or

Bluetooth,” which are two critical features of the iPhone. Id. ¶¶ 80–86. Moreover, “Apple made it

impossible for users who had transitioned to iOS7 to revert back to an earlier version of iOS,”

even though Apple previously allowed users to install older operating systems, Id. ¶ 80. Thus, if

an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S user transitioned to iOS 7 and experienced lost functionality, the user

could not transition back to iOS 6 or an earlier operating system. Id.

c. Apple’s Disabling of FaceTime for iOS 6 and Earlier Operating Systems

Because of the functionality problems discussed above, “a sizeable percentage of Apple’s

user base” continued to use iOS 6 or an earlier operating system after the introduction of iOS 7. Id.

¶ 88. Plaintiffs allege that this was problematic for Apple because, as set forth above, iPhone 4 and

iPhone 4S devices that used iOS 6 or earlier operating systems connected on FaceTime through
5

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

the relay method, rather than the new peer-to-peer method used on iOS 7. Id. ¶ 89. Thus, Apple

continued to pay Akamai substantial fees. Id.

According to the FAC, Apple decided to “break” FaceTime for iOS 6 and earlier operating

systems. Id. ¶ 90. Specifically, Apple “cause[d] a digital certificate necessary to the operation of

FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier operating systems to prematurely expire” on April 16, 2014. Id. ¶

91. As a result, FaceTime stopped working on iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices that used iOS 6 or

earlier operating systems. Id. The Court will hereafter refer to this event as the “FaceTime Break.”

In order to regain usage of FaceTime, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users were required to

upgrade to iOS 7, which utilized the new peer-to-peer method to connect FaceTime calls. Id.

However, as set forth above, transitioning to iOS 7 on an iPhone 4 or an iPhone 4S caused the

device to “buckle under the weight of the new software.” Id. ¶ 12.

Thus, Plaintiffs allege that after Apple disabled FaceTime for iOS 6 and earlier operating

systems on April 16, 2014, Apple in effect gave iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users three options. The

iPhone 4 or 4S user could either: (1) continue to use iOS 6 or an earlier operating system, but

never regain the ability to use FaceTime; (2) upgrade to iOS 7, but suffer the lost functionality that

iOS 7 caused iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices; (3) purchase a new iPhone device, such as an

iPhone 5 or 5C, that had the processing capability to successfully operate using iOS 7, and thus

regain the ability to use FaceTime on iOS 7. See id.

The FAC alleges that, at the time that Apple decided to disable FaceTime for users of iOS

6 and earlier operating systems, Apple knew that “[a]ll users with [iOS] 6.0 and older c[ould not]

make FaceTime [calls] any longer” as a result of Apple’s conduct. Id. ¶ 98. Further, Apple “fully

recognized that FaceTime was a very important tool” for iPhone 4 and 4S owners “that allowed

loved ones separated by geographic distance to remain connected in a meaningful way.” Id. ¶ 95.

Nonetheless, Apple broke FaceTime in order to gain a financial advantage and reduce relay fees.

Id. Indeed, some Apple employees seem to have found the FaceTime Break quite funny—one

employee wrote “hilarity ensues” to describe the aftermath. Mot. at 9. At least some senior Apple
6

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

executives were aware of what was occurring and issued a directive to falsely blame the FaceTime

Break on a “bug”. Mot at 11; see FAC ¶ 108.

d. Named Plaintiffs’ Experiences

Plaintiff Christina Grace (“Grace”) is a California resident who purchased an iPhone 4 in

August 2010. ECF No. 199-2 at 83:15–84:3; FAC ¶ 23. Grace testified that she used FaceTime. 

ECF No. 225-11 (excerpts of Grace’s deposition testimony). A review of Grace’s iPhone 4 

revealed at least one FaceTime use and a number of entries that may or may not have been 

FaceTime uses. ECF No. 223-4 at 1.

Plaintiff Ken Potter (“Potter”) is also a California resident. Id. ¶ 25. Potter purchased a 32

gigabyte (“GB”) iPhone 4 in September 2010, and a 16 GB iPhone 4 in March 2011. ECF No.

199-3 at 50:14–51:23. In early 2011, Potter “jailbroke” his 32 GB iPhone 4. Id. at 222:5–22. Potter

did not jailbreak his 16 GB iPhone 4. Id. at 223:24–224:5. Potter upgraded his non-jailbroken

phone to iOS 7.1.1, on June 25, 2014, and regained the ability to use FaceTime on the device at

that time. Id. at 152:17–22.

B. Procedural History

On February 2, 2017, Grace filed a putative class action complaint in this Court against Apple.

ECF No. 1. Plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of “All owners of Apple iPhone 4 or

Apple iPhone 4S devices in the United States who on April 16, 2014, had the iOS6 or earlier

operating system on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S.” Id. ¶ 107. The complaint alleged causes of

action against Apple for (1) trespass to chattels, and (2) violations of the UCL, each based on

Apple’s intentional disabling of FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier operating systems. See id. ¶ 1.

On March 22, 2017, Apple moved to dismiss the complaint. ECF No. 33. According to

Apple, Grace lacked standing under Article III and the UCL because Grace had no right to

uninterrupted FaceTime service under the terms of Apple’s Software License Agreement. Id. at

13–17. Further, Apple argued that Grace lacked standing to bring claims based on the use of

iPhone 4S, which Grace did not own, and that Grace lacked standing to raise issues relating to the
7

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

upgrade to iOS 7, which Grace never alleged that she downloaded. Id. at 18. In addition, Apple

argued that Grace failed to state a claim for trespass to chattels or violations of the UCL. See, e.g.,

id.

Rather than oppose Apple’s motion to dismiss, Grace filed the FAC on April 5, 2017. ECF

No. 36. The FAC added Potter as a named Plaintiff. Potter alleged that he upgraded to iOS 7 on

one of his iPhone 4 devices, and that Potter experienced lost functionality as a result of his

upgrade. Id.

Grace’s amendment of the complaint on April 5, 2017 was an amendment as of right under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) because Grace amended the complaint within 21 days

of Apple’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly,

on April 6, 2017, the Court denied as moot Apple’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. See

ECF No. 37.

On April 19, 2017, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which largely raised the same

arguments that Apple raised in its motion to dismiss the original complaint. ECF No. 38.1 On May

3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Apple’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 47. On May 10,

2017, Apple filed a reply. ECF No. 50.

On July 28, 2017, the Court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss. Grace v. Apple Inc., 2017

WL 3232464 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017). The Court found that Plaintiffs possessed Article III

standing, that Plaintiffs had stated claims for violation of the UCL’s “unfair” prong and trespass to

chattels, and that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged entitlement to restitution and injunctive relief.

On May 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. ECF No. 174 (“Mot.”).

Plaintiffs seek to certify the following nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).

This class is defined as the following:

All owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in the United States who

 

1 Apple also requested that the Court take judicial notice of Apple’s iOS 6 and iOS 7 License

Agreements. ECF No. 39. The Court granted this request. Grace v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 3232464,

at *4 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017)
8

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or

iPhone 4S devices.

Mot. at vii. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to certify a California class under Rule 23(b)(2) and

Rule 23(b)(3). This class is defined as the following:

All owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in California who on

April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone

4S devices.

Id. On June 15, 2018, Apple filed its opposition. ECF No. 201 (“Opp.”). On July 13, 2018,

Plaintiffs filed their reply. ECF No. 225 (“Reply”).

On July 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the Declaration of Dr. Avi Rubin,

Apple’s technical expert. ECF No. 233. On August 2, 2018, Apple filed its opposition. ECF No.

242. On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their reply. ECF No. 246.

On July 20, 2018, Apple filed objections to evidence submitted in connection with 

Plaintiffs’ reply. ECF No. 235.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 23

does not set forth a mere pleading standard. To obtain class certification, plaintiffs bear the burden

of showing that they have met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one

subsection of Rule 23(b). Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186, amended by

273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). “A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate

... compliance with the Rule[.]” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).

Rule 23(a) provides that a district court may certify a class only if: “(1) the class is so

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact

common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the

claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). That is, the class must satisfy the requirements of

numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation to maintain a class action.

Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 2012).
9

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

If all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, the Court must also find that the

plaintiff “satisf[ies] through evidentiary proof” at least one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b).

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013). The Court can certify a Rule 23(b)(1) class

when plaintiffs make a showing that there would be a risk of substantial prejudice or inconsistent

adjudications if there were separate adjudications. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). The Court can certify a

Rule 23(b)(2) class if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that

apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is

appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Finally, the Court can certify

a Rule 23(b)(3) class if the Court finds that “questions of law or fact common to class members

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is

superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

“[A] court’s class-certification analysis must be ‘rigorous’ and may ‘entail some overlap

with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim[.]’” Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr.

Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 465–66 (2013) (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d

at 588 (“‘Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine

whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.’” (quoting Zinser, 253

F.3d at 1186)). This “rigorous” analysis applies to both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). Comcast, 569

U.S. at 34 (stating that Congress included “addition[al] ... procedural safeguards for (b)(3) class

members beyond those provided for (b)(1) or (b)(2) class members (e.g., an opportunity to opt

out)” and that a court has a “duty to take a ‘close look’ at whether common questions predominate

over individual ones”).

Nevertheless, “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries

at the certification stage.” Amgen, 568 U.S. at 466. “Merits questions may be considered to the

extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23

prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id. If a court concludes that the moving party has
10

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

met its burden of proof, then the court has broad discretion to certify the class. Zinser, 253 F.3d at

1186.

III. DISCUSSION

Apple opposes Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on four main grounds. First, Apple 

argues that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate Rule 23(a)(3) typicality because the proposed class 

representatives’ iPhone usage is not typical of the class. Second, Apple advances a series of 

challenges to Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. Specifically, Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ trespass to 

chattels claim and Plaintiffs’ UCL claims require individualized inquiries, that Plaintiffs’ damages 

theory does not satisfy Comcast, and that Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide class is barred under 

California’s choice of law test. Third, Apple briefly argues that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate Rule 

23(b)(3) superiority. Fourth, Apple argues that no Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class can be certified. 

For their part, Plaintiffs contest Apple’s challenges to class certification arguments and have filed 

a separate motion to strike the report of Dr. Avi Rubin, Apple’s technical expert. Apple has also 

filed an objection to evidence Plaintiffs have submitted in connection with their reply.

The Court rejects Apple’s Rule 23(a)(3) typicality argument. The Court also rejects most 

of Apple’s Rule 23(b)(3) arguments. In particular, the Court finds that individual inquiries are not 

necessary for Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim and Plaintiffs’ UCL claim, and the Court rejects 

Apple’s Comcast challenge to Plaintiffs’ damages model. However, the Court agrees with Apple 

that California’s choice of law test precludes certification of a nationwide class, and agrees further 

that no Rule 23(b)(2) class is warranted. Finally, the Court closes by denying Plaintiffs’ motion to 

strike the report of Apple’s expert and rejecting Apple’s evidentiary objections.

A. Rule 23(a) Analysis

“Parties seeking class certification must satisfy each of the four requirements of Rule

23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy—and at least one of the requirements

of Rule 23(b).” Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied

sub nom. ConAgra Brands, Inc. v. Briseno, 138 S. Ct. 313 (Oct. 10, 2017). The Court takes each
11

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

of Rule 23(a)’s requirements in turn, and finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied all four.

1. Numerosity

Under Rule 23(a)(1), Plaintiffs must show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “In determining whether numerosity is

satisfied, the Court may consider reasonable inferences drawn from the facts before it.” In re

Yahoo Mail Litig., 308 F.R.D. 577, 589–90 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Apple concedes that there are at least 16 million class members spread across the country,

and does not dispute that numerosity would be satisfied if the Court certified a California-only

class. ECF No. 174-75 at 5:18–24. Consequently, because the proposed class “numbers well over

forty and joinder would be impracticable, the Court finds that the numerosity requirement is

satisfied.” In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 590; see, e.g., Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646,

651 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In general, courts find the numerosity requirement satisfied when a class

includes at least 40 members.”); Huynh v. Harasz, 2015 WL 7015567, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12,

2015) (“As other district courts have noted, ‘the numerosity requirement is usually satisfied where

the class comprises 40 or more members.’” (quoting Twegbe v. Pharma Integrative Pharmacy,

Inc., 2013 WL 3802807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013)).

2. Commonality

Next, Rule 23(a)(2) states that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as

representative parties on behalf of all members only if ... there are questions of law or fact

common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). To satisfy the commonality requirement, Plaintiffs

must show that the class members have suffered “the same injury,” meaning that class members’

claims must “depend upon a common contention” of such a nature that “determination of its truth

or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each [claim] in one stroke.” Dukes,

564 U.S. at 350 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiffs must demonstrate not merely the

existence of a common question, but rather “the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate

common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)
12

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

(emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the “common contention need not be one that will be

answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.” Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th

Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), even a

single common question will do.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 359 (alteration and quotation marks

omitted); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d at 589 (“[C]ommonality only requires a single significant

question of law or fact.”).

Plaintiffs identify a number of issues common to the class: (1) whether Apple deliberately

caused the FaceTime Break; (2) whether Apple intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ devices; (3)

whether Apple concealed its conduct; and (4) whether iOS 7 impaired the functionality of iPhone

4 and iPhone 4S devices. Apple does not dispute that these are common questions capable of

satisfying Rule 23(a)(2). In fact, Apple does not dispute Rule 23(a)(2) commonality at all. The

Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement.

3. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires plaintiffs to show that “the claims or defenses of the representative

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Typicality is

satisfied “when each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events, and each class

member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendants’ liability.” Rodriguez v. Hayes,

591 F.3d 1105, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir.

2001)). This requirement is “permissive and requires only that the representative’s claims are

reasonably co-extensive with those of the absent class members; they need not be substantially

identical.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). Claims that are

reasonably co-extensive with the claims of absent class members will satisfy the typicality

requirement, but the class must be limited to “those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s

claims.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349. “[C]lass certification is inappropriate where a putative class

representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation.”

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). “The purpose
13

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

of the typicality requirement is to assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with

the interests of the class.” Id.

Apple presents three arguments as to why Plaintiffs’ two proposed class representatives

cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)(3) typicality. First, Apple argues that Grace is not typical because she

never used FaceTime or did not use FaceTime enough. Second, Apple argues that Potter is not

typical because any interruption in FaceTime access was too brief to have injured him. Third,

Apple argues that Potter is not typical because he chose to “jailbreak” his iPhone. The Court

disagrees with Apple’s first two arguments and agrees partially with Apple’s third argument.

First, Apple’s opposition, which was based on the neutral evaluator’s initial findings,

argues that Grace is not typical because “[a] review of her phone demonstrates the absence of any

FaceTime calls made on her iPhone 4.” Opp. at 7. However, Apple has since conceded that this

argument was ultimately determined to be empirically incorrect. ECF No. 223-4 at 1 (Apple 

acknowledging this). Consequently, Apple’s new argument is that Grace is not typical because she 

did not use FaceTime enough. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ theory of the case is that Apple is

liable because the FaceTime Break reduced the monetary value of class members’ iPhones.

Determining precisely how often a class member like Grace used FaceTime is irrelevant to that

analysis. The Court therefore finds that Grace’s claims are typical of the class she seeks to

represent.

Second, Apple argues that Potter is not typical because he was only fleetingly deprived of

FaceTime access. That matters, Apple says, because a California trespass to chattels claim requires

that a plaintiff be deprived of personal property for a substantial time, a “mere momentary or

theoretical deprivation of use is not sufficient unless there is a dispossession.” Intel Corp. v.

Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1357 (2003). This is unpersuasive. The FaceTime Break occurred on

April 16, 2014, and Apple’s expert states that Potter upgraded his 16 GB iPhone 4 to iOS 7 on

June 25, 2014. ECF No. 223-6, Second Declaration of Avi Rubin (“Second Rubin Decl.”) at 24.

Apple is therefore arguing that 71 days without FaceTime is “a mere momentary or theoretical
14

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

deprivation.” It is not, a point underscored by Apple’s failure to point to any case adopting its

view.

Apple’s argument is also irrelevant. California recognizes three ways to establish an injury

in the context of a trespass to a computer system or similar device. Specifically, injury exists

where “the purported trespass: (1) caused physical damage to the personal property, (2) impaired

the condition, quality, or value of the personal property, or (3) deprived plaintiff of the use of

personal property for a substantial time.” Fields v. Wise Media, LLC, 2013 WL 5340490, at *4

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013). Apple’s argument about deprivation length is only relevant if Plaintiffs 

base their injury on a deprivation theory of harm. However, Plaintiffs are instead proceeding under 

an impaired value theory, which means that Apple’s argument is beside the point. The Court

explores this issue further in the subsequent Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis.

Third, Apple argues that Potter is not typical because he chose to “jailbreak” his 32 GB

iPhone 4. Broadly speaking, to “jailbreak” an iPhone is to remove programmed limitations in

order to enlarge the iPhone’s functionality, run unauthorized applications, or otherwise change the

iPhone’s performance. United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803, 808 (7th Cir. 2012)

(discussing this); United States v. Lee, 2012 WL 2031220, at *2 (D. Haw. June 6, 2012), aff’d, 585

F. App’x 632 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). Apple argues that Potter’s jailbreaking of his 32 GB iPhone

4 means he is subject to unique defenses (e.g. violation of the iOS Software License) and may not

even have suffered a cognizable injury.

The Court agrees that Potter’s claims based on his jailbroken 32 GB iPhone 4 are not 

typical of the class. Only a small fraction of iPhone owners jailbreak their devices and one of the 

main reasons to jailbreak an iPhone is to alter its performance and functionality relative to a 

normal iPhone, i.e. to make it significantly different. Opp. at 8 (describing jailbreaking and its 

effect on iPhones); Reply at 3 (stating less than 5 percent of iPhones are jailbroken). Accordingly, 

claims based on Potter’s jailbroken 32 GB iPhone 4 would be subject to unique defenses, such as 

that Potter violated the terms of Apple’s iOS Software License and that any performance issues 
15

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

with Potter’s 32 GB iPhone 4 are attributable to the device being jailbroken rather than the 

FaceTime Break. Opp. at 9.2

As a result, the Court will exercise its “broad discretion to modify class definitions” and 

amend Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide and California class definitions to exclude jailbroken 

iPhones. Williams v. City of Antioch, 2010 WL 3632199, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) (quoting 

Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Com'n, 501 F.3d 592, 619 (6th Cir. 2007)); 

Charlebois v. Angels Baseball, LP, 2011 WL 2610122, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) (“[T]he 

Court is free to limit the class definition or give Plaintiffs leave to do so.”); 7A Charles Alan 

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1759 (3d ed.) (“[T]he court may 

construe the complaint or redefine the class to bring it within the scope of Rule 23 or it may allow 

plaintiff to amend in order to limit the class.”).

Nevertheless, Potter still satisfies typicality. Potter owned a non-jailbroken 16 GB iPhone 

4 in addition to his jailbroken 32 GB iPhone 4. ECF No. 199-3 at 50:14–51:23. Potter’s claims 

based on the 16 GB iPhone 4 are not subject to any jailbreaking-related differences or defenses 

because the 16 GB iPhone 4 was not jailbroken. Thus, even though Potter’s claims based on his 32 

GB iPhone 4 do not satisfy Rule 23(a)(3) typicality, Potter’s 16 GB iPhone 4 does. Reply at 3 

(noting Apple’s jailbreaking typicality challenges apply only to Potter’s 32 GB iPhone 4).

In sum, the Court finds that Grace and Potter, as to his 16 GB iPhone 4 only, satisfy Rule

23(a)(3) typicality. The Court also amends Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide and California class 

definitions to exclude jailbroken iPhones.

4. Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires “the representative parties [to] fairly and adequately protect the

 

2

The existence of jailbroken iPhones does not, however, bar certification for ascertainability 

reasons because the Ninth Circuit has clarified that there is no freestanding ascertainability 

requirement under Rule 23(a). Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1133 (“We therefore join the Sixth, Seventh, 

and Eighth Circuits in declining to adopt an administrative feasibility requirement.”); see Bruton v. 

Gerber Prod. Co., 703 F. App'x 468, 470 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting “ascertainability” is synonymous 

with “administrative feasibility”).
16

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In the Ninth Circuit, to test the adequacy of a class

representative, a court must answer two questions: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel

have any conflicts of interest with other class members; and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their

counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d

938, 957 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020).

Apple does not dispute the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ counsel or the prospective lead

plaintiffs. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel satisfies Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy. Specifically,

the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel has experience in class action suits, has no conflicts of

interest in this case, has vigorously litigated this case, and will continue to do so. See ECF No. 

174-77 (listing attorneys’ background and experience). The Court also finds that prospective lead

plaintiffs Grace and Potter satisfy Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy. Specifically, the Court finds that Grace

and Potter do not have conflicts of interest with other class members, that they are willing and able 

to serve as class representatives, and that they will vigorously pursue this suit. See ECF No. 174-

80, Declaration of Christina Grace; ECF No. 174-81, Declaration of Ken Potter.

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of

numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The Court now turns to whether Plaintiffs

have satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement.

B. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance

Under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must show “that the questions of law or fact common to

class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 23(b)(3). The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement is “even more demanding” than Rule

23(a)’s commonality counterpart. Comcast, 569 U.S. at 34. Predominance “tests whether proposed

classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at

623 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that “there is clear justification for handling the

dispute on a representative rather than an individual basis” if “common questions present a

significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single
17

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

adjudication.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained, “[t]he

predominance inquiry asks whether the common, aggregation-enabling, issues in the case are more

prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregation-defeating, individual issues.” Tyson

Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (quoting 2 William Rubenstein,

Newberg on Class Actions, § 4:49 at 196–97 (5th ed. 2012)). “When ‘one or more of the central

issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be

considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried

separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class

members.’” Id. (quoting 7AAC Charles Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice

and Procedure, § 1778 at 123–24 (3d ed. 2005)).

Plaintiffs argue that common questions predominate because this case stems from Apple’s 

uniform and simultaneous creation of the FaceTime Break, which affected all class members at the 

same time and in the same way. Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 3614197, at *10 (N.D. 

Cal. June 9, 2015) (“[W]here a plaintiff’s claim under the ‘unfair’ prong ‘hinges on the existence 

of a uniform business practice or series of practices amenable to some degree of precise 

definition,’ certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class may be warranted.” (quoting Herskowitz v. Apple, 

Inc., 301 F.R.D. 460, 476 (N.D. Cal. 2014)). Plaintiffs note further that common questions are 

especially likely to predominate because this case centers almost exclusively on Apple’s conduct, 

namely causing the FaceTime Break, as opposed to class members’ individual experiences. See In 

re: Lenovo Adware Litig., 2016 WL 6277245, at *17–18 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) (finding 

Lenovo’s decision to install VirtualDiscovery on class members’ laptops was subject to common 

proof). In line with this view, Plaintiffs’ damages model bases class members’ damages on the 

diminution in the resale market value of affected iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices, which 

eliminates the need to base damages on class members’ personal experiences with the FaceTime 

Break (e.g. length of time without FaceTime access).

Apple has four responses. First, Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim
18

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

requires individual inquiries into whether class members have suffered legally cognizable harm.

Second, Apple argues that the same is true for Plaintiffs’ UCL claim. Third, Apple argues that

Plaintiffs’ classwide damages theory does not align with Plaintiffs’ theory of liability. Fourth,

Apple argues that California’s choice of law analysis bars applying California law to a nationwide 

class, and that applying the laws of each individual state would defeat predominance. The Court

rejects Apple’s first three arguments, but agrees with Apple that California’s choice of law test 

precludes certification of a nationwide class. 

1. Trespass to Chattels

The California Supreme Court has explained that “while a harmless use or touching of

personal property may be a technical trespass (see Rest. 2d of Torts, § 217), an interference (not

amounting to dispossession) is not actionable under modern California and broader American law

without a showing of harm.” Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th at 1350–51. Specifically, in the context of

trespass to a computer system or other similar devices, injury is adequately alleged where the

plaintiff pleads “that the purported trespass: (1) caused physical damage to the personal property,

(2) impaired the condition, quality, or value of the personal property, or (3) deprived plaintiff of

the use of personal property for a substantial time.” Fields, 2013 WL 5340490, at *4.

Apple argues that individual inquiries will be necessary in order to determine whether the

FaceTime Break deprived class members of the use of FaceTime for a “substantial time.” Apple 

says this is so because an actionable deprivation “must be for a time so substantial that it is

possible to estimate the loss caused thereby. A mere momentary or theoretical deprivation of use is

not sufficient unless there is a dispossession.” Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th at 1357 (quoting Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 217 cmt. i). In other words, Apple argues that class members pursuing a

trespass to chattels claim based on a deprivation theory can only recover if class members were

deprived of FaceTime use for a substantial time as opposed to a momentary or theoretical

deprivation.

Apple’s argument misconstrues Plaintiffs’ theory of liability. Plaintiffs are not arguing that
19

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Apple’s trespass deprived them “of the use of personal property for a substantial time” but rather

proceed under the alternative theory that the FaceTime Break “impaired the condition, quality, or

value” of their iPhones. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ briefing makes this point clear. See, e.g., Mot. at 1

(“The inability to use the FaceTime feature impacted the function and value of all Class members’

devices.”); id. at 22 (“Dr. Hastings has constructed an econometric damages model which shows

that the FaceTime Break caused all Class members’ iPhone 4 and 4S devices to lose value.”);

Reply at 4 (“Again, Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim is premised on the impairment to the

value of all iPhone 4 and 4S devices affected by the FaceTime Break.”). So does the report of

Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Professor Justine Hastings. ECF No. 173-6, Expert Report of Justine S.

Hastings, Ph.D. (“Hastings Report”) at 21 (“Here, the harmful event was the [FaceTime] Break.

The harm is the diminished value of the phone as measured by resale market prices.”). Apple’s

argument that individual inquiries will be necessary to determine whether Plaintiffs were deprived

of their property for a “substantial time” is therefore irrelevant—answering that question is

unnecessary in this case.

2. UCL

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits unfair competition, including

“any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or

misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The UCL creates a cause of action for

business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Each “prong” of the UCL

provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504

F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs proceed under the unfair prong of the UCL. Compl. ¶¶

130–35. Although there are a number of ways to satisfy the unfairness prong, Plaintiffs here rely

on the balancing test. Grace, 2017 WL 3232464, at *14 (discussing different tests used to satisfy

unfairness prong and finding Plaintiffs proceeded under the balancing test). The “balancing test”

“asks whether the alleged business practice is ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or

substantially injurious to consumers and requires the court to weigh the utility of the defendant’s
20

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.’ ” In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp.

3d 1051, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass’n, 182 Cal. App.

4th 247, 257 (2010)).

Apple argues that the balancing test precludes class certification because a class member’s

harm will depend on a number of individual inquiries such as when the class member upgraded to

iOS 7, and whether the class members suffered any performance-related issues as a result. Apple

therefore analogizes this case to the denial of class certification in Herskowitz, 301 F.R.D. 460.

The Herskowitz plaintiffs sought to certify a class of consumers who had been charged multiple 

times for the same product on one of Apple’s online marketplaces. Id. at 467.3 As here, the 

Herskowitz plaintiffs pursued a claim under the UCL’s unfair prong. Id. at 476. This Court denied

certification in part because of a concern that different class members had experienced different

harms depending on, inter alia, whether or not they had requested a refund. Id. The Court

reasoned that while it might “be possible to determine harm uniformly for each of these (and

other) possible scenarios, determining which scenario applies to any given class member will

require individualized inquiries.” Id.

Apple’s Herskowitz argument again misapprehends Plaintiffs’ theory of liability. Apple

assumes that Plaintiffs seek to measure class members’ harm by the length of their time without

FaceTime or the degree of their iPhone performance problems after upgrading to iOS 7. If that

were the case, Herskowitz’s concern that individual inquiries would be necessary to determine the 

type of harm that might apply. However, Plaintiffs have repeatedly stated that they are not 

attempting to measure harm in this manner.

4

Plaintiffs’ theory of the case is that the FaceTime 

 

3

For example, one Herskowitz plaintiff bought a song on the iTunes Store, but the song did not 

appear in her music library. Consequently, the plaintiff bought the song again, at which point the 

song appeared in her music library. The plaintiff was charged for both purchases. Herskowitz, 301 

F.R.D. at 466.

4 Apple also overlooks another distinction between Herskowitz and the instant case. In Herskowitz, 

the Court found that “Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence to support the existence of a

uniform business practice or series of practices respecting refunds in cases of double-billing.”

Herskowitz, 301 F.R.D. at 476. By contrast, the evidence here suggests the FaceTime Break was 

the result of a single action undertaken by Apple on a specific date which affected every class 
21

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Break made class members’ iPhones less valuable by forcing them to choose between (1) keeping 

iOS 6 and losing FaceTime or (2) upgrading to iOS 7 and keeping FaceTime, but experiencing 

substantial performance problems.5Plaintiffs seek to measure how much this problem diminished 

the monetary value of class members’ iPhones’ by comparing Best Buy’s resale prices for the 

iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S before and after the FaceTime Break. This means Plaintiffs can measure 

class members’ harm through the devices’ decreased market value instead of a case-by-case 

determination of when class members upgraded to iOS 7 and what performance issues they 

experienced thereafter. Best Buy’s data is especially useful in this regard because Best Buy 

upgrades iPhones to the latest iOS prior to resale, meaning there is no concern that the amount 

paid for resold iPhones could vary depending on whether a given iPhone was or was not upgraded 

to iOS 7 when it was resold. Opp. at 15 (noting Best Buy upgrades iPhones’ iOS prior to resale).

In sum, Apple’s Rule 23(b)(3) arguments based on Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels and UCL

claims fail because they rest on a misapprehension of Plaintiffs’ theory of harm. The Court now

turns to Apple’s challenge to Plaintiffs’ damages model.

3. Damages Model

Although individual damages calculations alone do not make class certification

inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), see Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir.

2013) (“[T]he amount of damages is invariably an individual question and does not defeat class

action treatment.”), the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff bears the burden of

providing a damages model showing that “damages are susceptible of measurement across the

entire class for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3).” Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35. The damages model “must

 

member in the same way. 

5 Both scenarios are grounded in fact. It is undisputed that FaceTime stopped working on iOS 6 on 

April 14, 2014, and Plaintiffs point to credible evidence that iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices 

performed poorly when running on iOS 7 because it overtaxes the devices’ older hardware. 

Compl. ¶¶ 75–76 (quoting ARS Technica article that examined iPhone 4 and found that 

“[e]verything is slower in iOS 7 and that delays due to the new operating system “can become a 

significant percentage of the time you spend” ); Id. ¶ 72 (noting iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S have 

approximately half the random access memory of the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5S).
22

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

measure only those damages attributable to” the plaintiff’s theory of liability. Id. If the plaintiff

does not offer a plausible damages model that matches her theory of liability, “the problem is not

just that the Court will have to look into individual situations to determine the appropriate measure

of damages; it is that Plaintiffs have not even told the Court what data it should look for.” In re

MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 2016 WL 7734558, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016).

Plaintiffs’ damages theory is presented by their expert, Professor Justine Hastings (“Dr. 

Hastings”). Dr. Hastings states that “[b]ecause the Break stopped FaceTime from working on the

iPhone 4 and 4S absent a migration to iOS 7 (and resulting decrease in functionality with

migration), these models’ resale prices would have dropped due to a loss in value in the market for

a valued feature.” Hastings Report at 20. Class members’ damages are therefore equal to “the

resale value of the phone compared to what the resale value would have been but-for the Break.”

Id. at 21. Dr. Hastings plans to isolate the effect of the FaceTime Break on resale value through

multivariate regression modeling. Id. at 22. In this approach, an economist creates a model that

“relates the price of the product in question to demand and supply factors which affect price based

on economic principles and facts about the market.” Id. The model includes a “dummy variable”

that “captures the average difference in price during the period the harmful act was in effect,

controlling for the influence on price of other demand and supply factors.” Id.

Dr. Hastings’ analysis relies on data from third-party smart phone resellers, in particular 

data from Best Buy because it “contains millions of individual-level phone transactions with resale

prices for the phones and detailed characteristics of each phone, along with the date of the sale.”

Hastings Report at 24. Best Buy’s data also includes “iPhone 4 models through iPhone 6 models,

and Samsung Galaxy models S4 through S6.” Id. Dr. Hastings can therefore use these other

models as a “a comparison group for estimating the impact of the Break on iPhone 4 and iPhone

4S resale prices, controlling for other factors impacting demand and supply for various phone

models.” Id. Best Buy’s data for each phone includes relevant characteristics such as model,

condition, storage size, and color—which are among the primary factors consumers look to when
23

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

deciding how much they are willing to pay for a phone. Id. at 22, 24.

Dr. Hastings also plans to control for other variables that affect iPhone supply and

consumer demand, such as prevailing economic conditions and seasonal variation (e.g. higher

demand around the holidays). See id. at 22–27 (discussing this); ECF No. 224-6, Reply Report of

Justine S. Hastings, Ph.D. (“Hastings Reply Report”), at 13 (noting model can add further controls 

if necessary), at 21 (“In fact, the multivariate regression in my report controls for 751 factors, all 

of which are factors that market participants, like Best Buy, state are important demand and/or 

supply factors impacting the price of phones.”). After accounting for outside variables, Dr. 

Hastings’s basis for class members’ damages is the effect of the FaceTime Break on the “price of 

the phone Best Buy received when it sold the phone to a third-party vendor for eventual resale on 

the used market to estimate damages.” Id. at 25. Dr. Hastings concludes that, based on Best Buy’s 

data6, “the Break caused prices of used iPhone 4 and 4S devices to fall by an estimated 12.72%.” 

Id. at 28.

It is important to be clear about what data Dr. Hastings employs. Consumers often trade-in 

used iPhones to carriers like AT&T or retailers like Best Buy, receiving in-store credit or credit 

towards the purchase of a new smartphone or in-store credit. For example, Best Buy will not offer 

cash for used smartphones, but will provide consumers with Best Buy gift cards. ECF No. 224-16 

at 36 (so noting); see ECF No. 200-3, Expert Report of Dana Trexler (“Trexler Report”), at 12 

(“[I]n September 2013, Verizon and AT&T offered customers a minimum of $200 trade-in credit 

for an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S in ‘good and working condition.’”).7 Retailers like Best Buy then 

resell the used iPhones in bulk to a range of third parties, such as enterprises, other retailers, and 

operators. Trexler Report at 36. We have, then, two separate but linked markets. Significantly, Dr. 

Hastings bases her findings off the latter retailer-to-third-party market, instead of the former 

 

6 Dr. Hastings also cross-checked this finding against Amazon data, and found a comparable 

impact of 17.58 percent. Hastings Report at 26–27.

7

This is as compared to a more traditional exchange of an iPhone for cash, as would be found on 

sites like Craigslist or eBay. Trexler Report at 12 (so noting).
24

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

consumer-to-retailer market. Hastings Report at 25 (noting damages model is based on “the price 

of the phone Best Buy received when it sold the phone to a third-party vendor” instead of the 

“trade-in value for phones”).

Apple has nine responses to this, none of which are persuasive. First, Apple argues that Dr. 

Hastings’s model is flawed because it measures the diminution in value for all iPhone 4 and 

iPhone 4S devices, even though iPhones that had already upgraded to iOS 7 at the time of the 

FaceTime Break were not affected. This is unpersuasive. Dr. Hastings’s model presumes that the 

FaceTime Break had a measurable effect on how much the market valued the iPhone 4 and iPhone 

4S, and that the reduction in market value can be expressed as a percentage. The fact that she has 

examined the market as a whole is unproblematic because she is attempting to measure market 

demand in the aggregate rather than demand for un-upgraded iPhones. See In re Lidoderm

Antitrust Litig., 2017 WL 679367, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017) (“[T]hat the experts dispute

what the appropriate inputs should be does not undermine the approach or the reliability of ... 

[Plaintiffs’ damages] model.”). This is especially true given that damages calculations under the 

UCL are “particularly forgiving” such that California requires “only that some reasonable basis of 

computation of damages be used ... even if the result reached is an approximation.” Lambert v. 

Nutraceutical Corp., 870 F.3d 1170, 1183 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. granted on other grounds, 138 S. 

Ct. 2675 (2018); Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2015)

(“[T]he fact that the amount of [restitution] damage may not be susceptible of exact proof or may 

be uncertain, contingent or difficult of ascertainment does not bar recovery.” (citation omitted)).

Second, Apple argues that Dr. Hastings bases her analysis on the wrong dataset. As noted

above, Best Buy provided Dr. Hastings with data indicating how much consumers received when 

they traded in their used iPhones (the retail market) and with data indicating how much Best Buy 

received when it resold those used iPhones to other entities (the wholesale market). Apple faults 

Dr. Hastings for relying on the latter dataset, arguing that her model does not measure “the amount 

class members could have received for their devices” but rather measures only how much Best 
25

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Buy received for reselling used iPhones in bulk to third parties. Opp. at 16. As proof, Apple points 

to the finding of its damages expert, Dana Trexler, that iPhones’ trade-in value increased8after the

FaceTime Break, which stands in stark contrast to Dr. Hastings’s finding that prices on the 

wholesale market fell. Trexler Report at 44–52.

Plaintiffs respond that relying on trade-in value would be even worse. Plaintiffs note that 

the headline prices for trading in used iPhones are distorted by rebates and promotions—a point 

Apple later echoes—and that consumers usually receive credit towards a new smartphone or a 

store gift card instead of cash. Hastings Reply Report at 18; Reply at 8 n.23; see Opp. at 17 (Apple 

faulting Dr. Hastings’s model for failing to “control for promotions and news related to the iPhone 

4 and 4S”). Plaintiffs therefore suggest that it is better to rely on wholesale data that can provide a 

reliable cash-per-iPhone figure than to rely on retail trade-in prices skewed by promotions and 

rebates, and which pay consumers in hard-to-value gift cards and trade-in credits. See also 

Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2014 WL 7338930, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014) (finding “the 

numerous complicating factors in the prescription drug market sever the relationship between 

price and value” such that “a consumer’s out-of-pocket cost for a drug is not a proxy for the drug's 

value to the consumer”). Dr. Hastings even indicates that it would be impossible to construct a 

damages model based on trade-in value because trade-in value “may include a combination of 

market value of the phone, discounts, and incentives towards purchases of additional Best Buy 

products” that “cannot be separated by the economist.” Hastings Report at 25; Hastings Reply

Report at 18 (stating trade-in price is not a suitable basis for damages modelling “because it often

contain[s] discounts and tie-ins to in-store purchases of new products bundled in with the trade-in

price, thus preventing the econometrician from being able to separately determine the diminished

value of the phone.”). More fundamentally, Plaintiffs dispute Apple’s assumption that the prices 

for used iPhones on the retail and wholesale markets are divorced from one another. As Dr. 

 

8 However, the increase in trade-in price was not uniform as Trexler freely admits that some 

affected iPhones’ trade-in value decreased after the FaceTime Break. Trexler Report at 47.
26

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Hastings points out, “all major platforms benchmark their phone offers against wholesale market 

prices.” Hastings Reply Report at 19.

Plaintiffs have the better of this argument, though the case is close. Comcast holds that 

damages models “must measure only those damages attributable to” the plaintiff’s theory of

liability. Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35. Plaintiffs’ theory of liability is that the FaceTime Break reduced 

the market value of class members’ iPhones, i.e. how much class members could expect to receive 

for their iPhones on the open market. Dr. Hastings concluded that the only feasible way to 

determine this amount was to look to the prices Best Buy received from bulk sales to third parties

in the wholesale market and to use it as a proxy. The Court agrees with Apple that there are flaws 

with this method, and it is possible that Plaintiffs’ model’s reliance on an indirect market measure

has inflated class members’ damages. Nevertheless, the question before the Court is whether 

Plaintiffs’ model “measure[s] only those damages attributable to” the plaintiff’s theory of liability.

Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35. Although “Plaintiffs’ model may be flawed, ... [Apple] has not 

established that the model is not tied to plaintiffs’ theory of liability.” In re: Lenovo, 2016 WL 

6277245, at *21. Moreover, despite Apple’s assertion that the trade-in market is the appropriate

basis for a damages measurement, Apple does not explain how Plaintiffs could have accounted for 

the distorting effects of promotions and rebates. The bottom line is that Apple’s arguments about 

the appropriate dataset raise a factual dispute that goes to the weight of Dr. Hastings’s report, not

whether her damages model “measure[s] only those damages attributable to” Plaintiffs’ theory of 

liability. Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35.

Third, Apple argues that Dr. Hastings has not accounted for the value of the free upgrade

to iOS 7. In particular, Apple argues that class members’ harm from losing access to FaceTime

was minimal because class members could quickly upgrade to iOS 7 at no cost and regain access

to FaceTime. This is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs allege that class members’ iPhones suffered a

significant decrease in performance upon upgrading to iOS 7. FAC ¶¶ 70–87. Thus, Apple’s claim 

that upgrading to iOS 7 redressed all harm fails because it ignores this key aspect of Plaintiffs’
27

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

case. Apple’s technical expert, Dr. Avi Rubin, appears to suggest that there were not major 

performance differences between iOS 6 and iOS 7, or that performance issues were attributable to 

other sources. See ECF No. 223-6 at 13–15. Given that Plaintiffs have credible evidence pointing 

the opposite direction, this is a factual dispute not suited for resolution at the class certification 

stage. FAC ¶¶ 72–78. Again, Plaintiffs’ damages theory is that class members were harmed by the

decreased value of their iPhones that resulted from the FaceTime Break. This harm remains 

constant whether or not class members upgraded. Indeed, the Court rejected a similar version of 

this argument at the motion to dismiss phase. See Grace, 2017 WL 3232464, at *10 (“Apple’s 

argument confuses Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is that Apple permanently 

deactivated FaceTime for iOS6, which has caused Plaintiffs’ iPhones to diminish in value.”). 

Fourth, Apple argues that Dr. Hastings’s dataset is fatally undermined by the fact that Best

Buy upgraded all used iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S phones to iOS 7 prior to resale during the time

period Dr. Hastings analyzed. This means all of the iPhones included in Dr. Hastings’s analysis

were sold with iOS 7. It follows, Apple contends, that none of the devices ever lost the ability to

use FaceTime because the FaceTime Break only affected iPhones running iOS 6. Apple argues

that this fatally undermines Dr. Hastings’s analysis because she cannot create a “benchmark for

the value of an iPhone 4 or 4S running FaceTime on iOS 6 before April 16, 2014.” Opp. at 16.

Apple’s theory merely reframes the argument that the Court rejected above. Plaintiffs’ theory is 

that class members were harmed by the FaceTime Break and that this harm is reflected in the price 

that the market was willing to pay for used iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices.9 Because Plaintiffs 

have consciously chosen to measure class members’ harm through the market value of class 

members’ iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices, what matters for benchmark purposes is how much the 

devices were valued before and after the FaceTime Break instead of what version of iOS the 

devices were running. 

 

9 Any concern that this market price might not account for the potentially different value of 

jailbroken iPhones is addressed by excluding jailbroken iPhones from the class definition. See 

Section III.A.3, supra.
28

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Fifth, Apple criticizes Dr. Hastings’s model for failing to “control for promotions and news

related to the iPhone 4 and 4S.” Opp. at 17. However, Apple’s leading examples are trade-in

promotions and Dr. Hastings deliberately relied on wholesale resale value to minimize the

distorting effect of trade-in promotions. Hastings Reply Report at 18 (so noting). In other words, 

Apple faults Dr. Hastings for failing to adequately account for trade-in promotions after Dr. 

Hastings structured her model to render them irrelevant. That is not a strong argument. Apple’s 

argument is also inconsistent: Apple makes much of Trexler’s finding that trade-in values rose 

after the FaceTime Break, but Trexler’s finding is based on averaging trade-in values without 

controlling for other factors such as promotions. See id. at 23–24. Thus, Apple faults Dr. Hastings 

for inadequate controls when its own expert applied even fewer controls to her analysis. 

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that class certification does not require 

damages models based on flawless price averages. In Lambert, a district court denied certification

because the plaintiffs’ damages model was based on suggested retail price instead of actual retail 

price. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and reasoned that a “suggested retail price does not 

automatically configure an average, but such a precise average is unnecessary for class 

certification. At this stage, the question is only whether [the plaintiff] ... has presented a workable 

method.” Id. at 1183–84. Here, Dr. Hastings has proposed a damages model based on actual resale 

data that controls for a number of external factors. That is enough. Indeed, this Court has 

previously explained that assertions, like Apple’s, that models were flawed owing to their failure

to include this or that variable are “prototypical concern[s] that go[] to weight, not admissibility.” 

In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 1351040, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014); 

see Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986) (“Normally, failure to include variables will 

affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.”).

Sixth, Apple makes the related argument that Dr. Hastings’s report is fatally flawed

because it fails to control for devices that are “jailbroken, damaged, or ha[ve] undergone

unauthorized repair.” Opp. at 16. The Court disagrees. Apple’s argument applies to at most a small
29

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

percentage of the class. For instance, less than 5 percent of iPhone owners jailbreak their devices. 

Hastings Reply Report at 14–15. Moreover, to the extent that certain class members are entitled to 

less or no relief because their iPhones fall into these categories, this issue can easily be remedied 

by the use of claims forms. See, e.g., In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litig., 2017 WL 235052, at

*21 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) (“Post-judgment claims forms and other tools can be used to allow

defendants to test an absent class member’s purported entitlement to damages and to appropriately

apportion damages between class members.”); Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC, 2018

WL 3830137, at *9–10 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) (finding that class members could certify

whether they encountered an actionable violation of a statute and were therefore entitled to

damages); see Lambert, 870 F.3d at 1183 (noting damages calculations under the UCL are 

“particularly forgiving” such that California requires “only that some reasonable basis of 

computation of damages be used ... even if the result reached is an approximation.”); id. at 1882 

(“We have repeatedly emphasized that uncertain damages calculations should not defeat 

certification.”); Pulaski, 802 F.3d at 988 (noting that California law “requires only that some

reasonable basis of computation of damages be used, and the damages may be computed even if

the result reached is an approximation.”). The Court notes also that, as with Apple’s last argument,

this type of missing variable argument goes to the weight of Dr. Hastings’s analysis rather than its 

admissibility. High-Tech, 2014 WL 1351040, at *20; Bazemore, 478 U.S. at 400.

Seventh, Apple alleges that Dr. Hastings “arbitrarily” defined the damages period as

extending to December 31, 2016, over 2.5 years after the FaceTime Break. Opp. at 16. The Court

disagrees. Dr. Hastings selected a December 31, 2016 end date because the underlying dataset

extended to December 31, 2016. Trexler Report at 54. Apple may believe that the FaceTime

Break’s effects did not last that long, but a bald assertion that it was “arbitrary” for Dr. Hastings to

base her analysis on all the data before her is unpersuasive.

Eighth, Apple argues that Dr. Hastings erred in calculating a single average price impact

because the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S are different devices with different attributes. To start, the
30

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Court previously rejected a similar version of this theory at the motion to dismiss phase, when 

Apple suggested that Grace and Potter lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of iPhone 4S 

owners because Grace and Potter had purchased the iPhone 4. See Grace, 2017 WL 3232464, at 

*8–9 (rejecting Apple’s argument because it was undisputed that both devices used iOS, had 

FaceTime, and lost FaceTime as a result of the FaceTime Break if they had not upgraded). Yet 

even if Apple is correct and separate price impacts should be calculated for the iPhone 4 and 

iPhone 4S, Apple nowhere suggests that Dr. Hastings’s model is incapable of doing so. In fact, 

Plaintiffs indicate that Dr. Hastings’s model could be combined with claims forms to determine 

how much a class member was owed based on a range of iPhone characteristics. Reply at 10 

(“[D]uring the claims administration process, the percentage diminution in value may be applied

to each class member’s device to determine each class member’s damages, taking into account the

same handful of key characteristics that Apple itself uses to determine the price of a phone (model 

and condition).”).

Ninth, Apple argues that Plaintiffs’ damages model does not align with Plaintiffs’ UCL 

claim because the UCL only authorizes restitution. Restitution under the UCL “must be of a 

measurable amount to restore to the plaintiff what has been acquired by violations of the statutes, 

and that measurable amount must be supported by evidence.” Pulaski, 802 F.3d at 988 (citation 

omitted). California law “requires only that some reasonable basis of computation of damages be

used, and the damages may be computed even if the result reached is an approximation.” Id.

(citation omitted); Lambert, 870 F.3d at 1182 (stating in case including UCL claim that “[w]e have 

repeatedly emphasized that uncertain damages calculations should not defeat certification.”).

Plaintiffs’ diminution in value damages model meets this bar. On April 16, 2014, the market 

learned that FaceTime had stopped working on iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S devices that had not 

upgraded to iOS 7 and that the only way to restore FaceTime was to upgrade. Consequently, 

comparing the market value of the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S before and after that information was 

revealed—i.e. before and after the FaceTime Break—seems an accurate way of determining how 
31

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

much class members lost as a result of the FaceTime Break. 

The cases to which Apple points do not compel a contrary conclusion. Brazil v. Dole

Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL 5794873 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014); Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,

2016 WL 7428810 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016), aff’d, 726 F. App’x 608 (9th Cir. 2018). In Brazil,

the plaintiff brought a class action that alleged the defendant had mislabeled its food products.

This Court granted certification because the plaintiff’s expert presented a damages model that

would compare the price of the food products before the misrepresentations and the price of the

food products after the misrepresentations. Brazil, 2014 WL 5794873, at *5. However, the Court 

decertified when the model failed to materialize and the alternative model proved inadequate. Id.

at 6, 14. In brief then, Brazil approved a damages model that mirrors the before-and-after Plaintiffs 

envision here, and the Court decertified only when that model failed to materialize. That is not 

strong support for finding that Dr. Hastings’s model fails to satisfy Comcast. Nor is Philips any 

better. The Court there rejected the proposed damages model because the damages model assumed 

that the true value of the allegedly defective part “was $0.” Philips, 2016 WL 7428810, at *21. 

Plaintiffs’ damages model does not make that assumption here, so Philips is inapposite. 

In sum, the Court rejects Apple’s challenges to Dr. Phillips’s damages model and finds that

Plaintiffs’ damages model complies with Comcast. The Court now turns to Apple’s choice of law 

arguments.

4. Choice of Law

Apple argues that “common issues of law do not predominate because California’s

consumer protection statutes [and trespass to chattels law] may not be applied to a nationwide

class with members in ... [50] jurisdictions.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 589. The Court agrees. California

choice of law rules preclude applying California law to the proposed nationwide class. In turn,

“[b]ecause adjudication of the nationwide claims will require application of the laws of 50 states,

common questions of law would not predominate for the proposed nationwide class, as is required

by Rule 23(b)(3).” Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL 2466559, at *14 (N.D. Cal.
32

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

May 30, 2014). However, the Court notes at the outset that this problem does not prevent 

certification of Plaintiffs’ alternatively proposed California class.

“A federal court sitting in diversity must look to the forum state’s choice of law rules to

determine the controlling substantive law.” Zinser, 253 F.3d at 1187. “Under California’s choice

of law rules, the class action proponent bears the initial burden to show that California has

‘significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts’ to the claims of each class member.”

Mazza, 666 F.3d at 589 (quoting Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 906, 921 (Cal.

2001)). This showing “is necessary to ensure that application of California law is constitutional.”

Id. at 589–90. “Once the class action proponent makes this showing, the burden shifts to the other

side to demonstrate ‘that foreign law, rather than California law, should apply to class claims.’” Id.

at 590 (quoting Wash. Mut. Bank, 24 Cal.4th at 921).

Apple’s principal place of business is in California and it appears Apple’s actions that 

caused the FaceTime Break were taken in California. Moreover, Apple does not dispute that

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that California has a constitutionally sufficient aggregation of

contacts to the claims of each putative class member in this case. Accordingly, the Court is

satisfied that California has sufficient contacts with the class claims. See In re Yahoo Mail, 308

F.R.D. at 602 (finding application of California law was constitutionally permissible where

defendant’s corporate headquarters were in California, the defendant’s executive decision makers

were largely in California, and the processes at issue were developed and directed in California);

In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., 292 F. Supp. 3d 948, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (reaching same

conclusion on similar facts).

The Court now turns to whether “foreign law, rather than California law, should apply.”

Mazza, 666 F.3d at 590 (citation omitted). California law may be applied on a classwide basis only

if “the interests of other states are not found to outweigh California’s interest in having its law

applied.” Id. (quoting Wash. Mut. Bank, 24 Cal.4th at 921). To determine whether the interests of

other states outweigh California’s interest, courts administer a three-step government interest test.
33

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

The court must first determine whether the law of the other states is materially different from

California law. Id. at 590. Second, if there are differences, the court determines whether the other

state has an interest in having its law applied to decide whether a true conflict exists. Id. at 591–

92. Third, if another state has an interest, the court determines which state’s interest would be

most impaired if its policy were subordinated to the law of another state. Id. at 593.

a. Material Differences in State Law

Plaintiffs bring a claim for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and a claim for trespass to chattels

under California law. The Court examines each in turn, and finds that both claims are materially 

different from the laws of other states.

Apple lists a number of ways in which California’s UCL is materially different from other 

states’ consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs do not dispute Apple’s argument. Even so, 

thoroughness compels pointing out at least some of the distinctions. First, pre-filing notice is not 

required in California, but is a prerequisite in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Mississippi, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. ECF No. 201-7 at 2–26 (Apple’s state law 

appendix). Plaintiffs did not provide pre-filing notice, so this distinction is material because it is 

potentially dispositive. In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 602 (noting differences that would spell 

difference between success and failure of a claim are material). Second, Alabama, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, and Tennessee prohibit consumer protection 

class actions outright. See id. This too is a potentially dispositive distinction. Fourth, while the 

UCL does not require scienter, but “many other states’ consumer protection statutes do require 

scienter.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 591 (listing examples). Fifth, “California also requires named class 

plaintiffs to demonstrate reliance, while some other states’ consumer protection statutes do not.” 

Id. (listing examples). Given this list of distinctions, the Court finds that there are material 

differences between the UCL claim and other states’ consumer protection laws.

The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim. Apple argues that California’s 
34

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

trespass to chattels law materially differs from other states’ trespass to chattels laws in three 

respects. First, Apple argues that California’s scienter requirement differs from that of other states. 

Second, Apple argues that applicable statutes of limitations also vary from state to state. Third, 

Apple argues that some states do not require a meaningful harm showing. The Court rejects the 

first two arguments, but agrees with the third. 

Apple points to Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico in support of its argument 

that California’s scienter requirement for trespass to chattel claims differs materially from those of

other states. Opp. at 21. Yet according to the cases in Apple’s own Appendix, each state’s law—

like California’s—requires that the trespasser have acted intentionally. California law provides 

that “trespass to chattels lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal 

property has proximately caused injury.” Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th at 1350–51 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Arizona provides that “an intermeddling is not a dispossession unless 

the actor intends to exercise a dominion and control over [property] inconsistent with a possession 

in any other person other than himself.” Hagar v. Rodbell, 2012 WL 827068, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 

12, 2012). Kentucky requires an “intent to intermeddle with the particular property ... .” Ingram

Trucking, Inc. v. Allen, 372 S.W. 3d 870, 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012). Colorado holds that “it is

necessary that the defendant have acted for the purpose of interfering with the chattel.” Mountain

States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Horn Tower Const. Co., 363 P.2d 175, 178 (Colo. 1961). Finally, New 

Mexico provides that “[t]he intention required to make one liable for trespass to a chattel is that he

must have acted for the purpose of interfering with the chattel or with knowledge that a

disturbance thereof is substantially certain to occur.” Texas-New Mexico Pipeline Co. v. Allstate

Const., Inc., 369 P.2d 401, 40 (N.M. 1962). In sum, because California, Kentucky, Arizona, 

Colorado, and New Mexico all require intentional action Apple has failed to show that there is a 

material difference between California’s scienter requirement and those of other states. 

Apple next contends that the length of the applicable statute of limitations differs 

materially from state to state. In particular, although California’s statute of limitations for this 
35

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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 (like many other states) is three years, Louisiana has a one-year statute of limitations, and 

the statute of limitations is two years in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338; Alaska 

Stat. § 09.10.070; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-542; Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 657-7; Ind. Code Ann. § 

34-11-2-4; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.125; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 

3492; Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-207; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95; 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. 

Ann. § 5524; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003; W. Va. Code Ann. § 55-2-12.

It is not clear that these statute of limitations differences matter for this case. The

FaceTime Break occurred on April 16, 2014, and this suit was filed approximately 33 months later

on February 2, 2017. ECF No. 1. If Plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim accrued on April 16, 2014,

it is likely barred in the 12 states with one or two year statutes of limitations. In that case, the 

statute of limitations difference would be material because it “spell[s] the difference between the

success and failure of a claim.” In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Mazza, 666 F.3d at

591). However, Apple does not suggest that these 12 states diverge from the usual rule that claims 

accrue when a reasonable person would have learned about the facts necessary to file suit. Indeed, 

even Louisiana applies the “discovery rule” whereby the one year statute of limitations periods 

begins to run “on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon 

which his cause of action is based.” Body By Cook v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 39 F. Supp. 3d 827, 836 

(E.D. La. 2014). That matters here because Plaintiffs have consistently argued that Apple’s 

conduct came to light only as the result of a 2016 patent trial. ECF No. 1 at 26 (“Apple refused to 

disclose the truth behind why FaceTime had suddenly stopped working ... Apple publicly 

disclosed nothing about any of this (until it was reluctantly forced to do so at the VirnetX retrial in 

2016).”); FAC at 28 (stating same). Given that the transcripts from that trial were not released 

until May 9, 2016, Plaintiffs have a reasonable argument that class members’ claims did not 

accrue until that date—in which case this action satisfies even Louisiana’s one year statute of 

limitations. Reply at 13. Specifically, less than 9 months elapsed between the release of the 
36

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

transcripts on May 9, 2016, and Plaintiffs initiating this suit on February 2, 2017.

The foregoing is not meant to establish that Plaintiffs’ claims did or did not accrue on a 

certain date. Rather, the point is that Apple’s failure to explain why the statute of limitations 

distinction matters based on the facts of this case dooms its argument. The Court agrees that the 

statute of limitations differences would be material if Plaintiffs’ claims accrued on April 16, 2014. 

But Apple has not argued for an April 16, 2014 accrual date. In fact, Apple has not argued for an 

accrual date at all. All Apple has done is make the point that different states have different statutes 

of limitations. Opp. at 21. That is not enough. The mere “fact that two or more states are involved 

does not itself indicate that there is a conflict of law problem. A problem only arises if differences 

in state law are material, that is, if they make a difference in this litigation.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at

590 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Apple has not attempted to explain 

why differences in state statutes of limitations make a difference in this litigation, the Court cannot 

find that the differences are material. 

A similar problem confronted the district court in In re Packaged Seafood Products

Antitrust Litigation, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (S.D. Cal. 2017). As here, the defendants argued that

statutes of limitations were materially different and therefore barred a nationwide class. Id. at

1180–81. The district court rejected this argument:

Defendants nowhere address whether the statutes of limitations might actually

preclude certain claims given the facts of this case, and even Defendants’ sole

authority (which is contradicted by several cases Plaintiffs offer) rested its relevant

analysis on such a showing. Furthermore, Plaintiffs assert that “all the consumer

claims at issue are timely under any of the relevant statutes of limitation” and

Defendants nowhere counter this statement. Accordingly, Defendants have not here

shown that the differing statutes of limitation are material within the meaning of

Mazza.

Id. at 1181 (internal citations omitted). The Court finds this reasoning persuasive, and adopts it. It 

is not enough to simply note that different statutes of limitations exist. Apple must actually explain 

why those differences might matter for this case, especially because it has been obvious since the 

outset that Plaintiffs believe Apple’s conduct did not emerge until the 2016 patent litigation. See 
37

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Grodzitsky v. Am. Honda Motor Co. Inc., 2014 WL 718431, at *8–9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014) 

(“California’s choice-of-law analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis because it 

requires analyzing various states’ laws under the circumstances of the particular case and given the 

particular legal issue in question.”); Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2016 WL 1535057, at *10 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) (“At the class certification stage, other district courts have rejected blind 

reliance on Mazza, and instead require defendants to provide case-specific analysis as to the 

second and third prongs of the governmental interest test.”). In sum, the Court rejects Apple’s 

argument that differences between statutes of limitations are material here.

Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Apple’s third argument that the level of interference

required for a trespass to chattels claim materially differs from state to state. To prevail on a claim

for trespass to a computer system or similar device, California law requires the plaintiff to show

that the trespass “(1) caused physical damage to the personal property, (2) impaired the condition,

quality, or value of the personal property, or (3) deprived plaintiff of the use of personal property

for a substantial time.” Grace, 2017 WL 3232464, at *11 (quoting Fields, 2013 WL 5340490, at

*4). Plaintiffs are here proceeding under the second of these options and argue in particular that 

Apple’s conduct harmed them by diminishing the value of their iPhones. 

The problem for Plaintiffs is that Apple has provided authority—whose accuracy Plaintiffs 

do not dispute—indicating that other states would permit liability even absent a showing of harm. 

For instance, in Iowa “[i]f a party cannot prove actual injury, the law entitles him to recover 

nominal damages.” Sheridan v. City of Des Moines, 2000 WL 35626707, at *4 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 

10, 2000). Likewise, in Florida “[a]ny unlawful interference, however slight, with another’s

enjoyment of his or her personal property is a trespass, forcible dispossession being unnecessary

as a rule.” Am. Fed’n of Labor-Cong. of Indus. Organizations v. City of Miami, 2008 WL

11333331, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2008) (quoting 55 Fla. Jur. 2d Trespass § 3 (1984)) (emphasis 

added). Thus, Florida would permit liability even absent physical damage, impairment, or 

deprivation—the interference is enough. Similarly, North Carolina does not require “actual 
38

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

damage as an essential element” of a trespass to chattels claim where “actual damage” is defined 

as “some actual loss, hurt or harm resulting from the illegal invasion of a legal right.” Hawkins v. 

Hawkins, 101 N.C. App. 529, 532–33 (1991). In other words, North Carolina permits liability for 

trespass to chattels even if the plaintiff does not show they suffered “some actual loss, hurt or

harm resulting from the illegal invasion of a legal right.” Id. at 532. The bottom line, then, is that 

Apple points to significant authority showing that California’s trespass to chattels law differs 

materially from that of other states.

Plaintiffs have chosen not to contest or respond to Apple’s characterization of other states’

trespass to chattels laws. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the differences Apple highlights are not 

material and therefore do not preclude a nationwide class. The Court disagrees. Apple has 

consistently argued that it cannot be liable because the FaceTime Break did not cause class 

members any actual harm. The distinction between a state like California that requires some 

degree of harm and states like Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa that do not is therefore highly 

material because applying those states’ laws in place of California’s could “spell the difference

between the success and failure of a claim.” In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 602 (quoting Mazza, 

666 F.3d at 591). Put otherwise, the differences are material because if Apple’s no harm theory is 

correct, Apple cannot be liable in California but may still be liable in Florida, North Carolina, or 

Iowa. Mazza itself underscores the point. The Ninth Circuit there found that the existence of 

absence of a reliance requirement in different states’ consumer protection laws—in essence, a 

requirement that a plaintiff show that a defendant had caused them harm—constituted a material 

difference. Mazza, 666 F.3d at 591. 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ California UCL and trespass to chattels claims differ 

materially from other states’ analogous laws. The Court now turns to the second step in the 

inquiry, whether other states have an interest in applying their laws. 

b. Other States’ Interests

“[S]tates may permissibly differ on the extent to which they will tolerate a degree of
39

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

lessened protection for consumers to create a more favorable business climate for the companies

that the state seeks to attract to do business in the state.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 592; see id. (“[T]he

district court erred by discounting or not recognizing each state’s valid interest in shielding out-ofstate businesses from what the state may consider to be excessive litigation.”). Consequently,

“each state has an interest in setting the appropriate level of liability for companies conducting

business within its territory.” Id.; In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 603 (“Each state has an interest

in being able to delineate the appropriate standard of liability and the scope of recovery based on

its understanding of the balance between the interests of individuals and corporate entities

operating within its territory.”).

There is no doubt that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim implicates other states’ interests in balancing

business climate and consumer protections. The Ninth Circuit in Mazza recognized that other 

states’ interest in balancing business climate and consumer protections applied in the putative 44 

state consumer class action, which likewise alleged inter alia a violation of the UCL. Mazza, 666

F.3d at 587, 592–93; Potter v. Chevron Prods. Co., 2018 WL 4053448, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,

2018) (another prospective class action involving a claim under the UCL that found states’

balancing interest was implicated); Frezza v. Google Inc., 2013 WL 1736788, at *7 (N.D. Cal.

Apr. 22, 2013) (same).

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court have both recognized that 

other jurisdictions have an interest in seeing their tort laws applied to injuries that occurred within 

their borders. McGhee v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 871 F.2d 1412, 1425 (9th Cir. 1989), as amended 

on reh’g (Apr. 28, 1989) (“Saudi Arabia has some legitimate interest in seeing that Saudi law 

determines the consequences of actions within its borders causing injury to people who reside 

there.”); Offshore Rental Co. v. Cont’l Oil Co., 22 Cal. 3d 157, 160, 168 (1978). The California 

Supreme Court’s Offshore Rental decision is especially relevant. Offshore Rental held that 

Louisiana law should apply over California law where the plaintiff was a California resident, the 

alleged tort (negligence) occurred in Louisiana, and defendant corporation was a citizen of neither 
40

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

state. The opinion stressed Louisiana’s “vital interest in promoting freedom of investment and 

enterprise within Louisiana’s borders” and found this interest prevailed over California’s interest 

in compensating its residents. Offshore Rental, 22 Cal. 3d at 168; see McCann v. Foster Wheeler 

LLC, 48 Cal. 4th 68, 91–94 (2010) (discussing Offshore Rental and affirming its continued 

vitality). 

In sum, other states have an interest in seeing their laws applied to Plaintiffs’ claims. The 

Court now balances those states’ interests against California’s interest in seeing its law applied. 

c. Balance of Interests

California law generally recognizes that “with respect to regulating or affecting conduct

within its borders, the place of the wrong has the predominant interest.” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 593

(citation omitted). “California considers the ‘place of the wrong’ to be the state where the last

event necessary to make the actor liable occurred.” Id.

Plaintiffs argue that the place of the wrong is California because that is where Apple 

undertook the actions which caused the FaceTime Break. Plaintiffs point to McCann, in which a 

California plaintiff sued a Delaware10 corporation in tort for exposing the plaintiff to asbestos in 

Oklahoma. McCann, 48 Cal. 4th at 74, 91. McCann applied California’s choice of law test and 

concluded that Oklahoma law should apply over California’s. Specifically, McCann found that the 

plaintiff’s claim had accrued where he was exposed to asbestos (i.e. Oklahoma) rather than where 

the plaintiff fell ill and sued (i.e. California). Id. at 101–02.

It is unclear why Plaintiffs believe that McCann supports their argument. McCann did not 

hold that the plaintiff’s claim accrued where the asbestos was manufactured, but rather held that 

the claim accrued where the plaintiff himself was exposed to the asbestos. Likewise, class 

members’ claims did not accrue in California where the FaceTime Break originated, but rather in 

the state in which class members’ iPhones ceased being able to use FaceTime. Framed differently, 

 

10 The corporation was incorporated in Delaware, but was headquartered in New York. McCann, 

48 Cal. 4th at 91.
41

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

the last event necessary to make Apple liable was the loss of FaceTime access on class members’ 

iPhones, and that event took place wherever a given class member was on April 16, 2014.

Mazza underscores the point. There, a putative class with members in 44 states accused 

Honda of misrepresenting the characteristics of its braking system in marketing materials. Mazza, 

666 F.3d at 585, 587. Honda was a California corporation, and the marketing materials had been 

created in California. Id. at 597 (Nelson, J., dissenting). Even so, Mazza found California law 

could not apply to out of state class members because “the last events necessary for liability as to 

the foreign class members—communication of the advertisements to the claimants and their 

reliance thereon in purchasing vehicles—took place in the various foreign states, not in 

California.” Id. at 594.

The Court grants that Mazza was a false advertising case, and this suit is not. Even so, 

Mazza likewise concerned a UCL claim and its key finding—that a claim accrues where the harm 

is felt rather than where it originated—remains fully applicable here. The Court therefore finds 

that the place of the wrong here is where class members were exposed to the FaceTime Break, 

even if many of Apple’s actions preceding the exposure took place in California. Cf. Brazil, 2014 

WL 2466559, at *14 (“The place of the wrong is the geographic location where the 

misrepresentations were communicated to the consumer.”); Frezza, 2013 WL 1736788, at *5–7 

(relying on Mazza to reach similar conclusion).

In sum, because the place of the wrong was the state in which each class member was 

exposed to the FaceTime Break each class member’s claims should be governed by the law of the 

state in which they were exposed to the FaceTime Break. Consequently, the Court will not certify 

a nationwide class because doing so would require application of all 50 states’ laws. However, this 

does not bar certification of Plaintiffs’ alternative California-only class. 

C. Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) provides four factors that a court must consider in determining whether a

class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. These factors are:
42

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or

defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun

by or against class members;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in

the particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “[T]he purpose of the superiority requirement is to assure that the class is

the most efficient and effective means of resolving the controversy.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover 

N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 7A Charles Wright, Arthur Miller &

Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1779 at 174 (3d ed. 2005)). “In cases in which

plaintiffs seek to recover relatively small sums and the disparity between litigation costs and the

recovery sought may render plaintiffs unable to proceed individually, ‘class actions may permit

the plaintiffs to pool claims which would be uneconomical to bring individually.’” Moore v. Ulta

Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., 311 F.R.D. 590, 622 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Local Joint

Executive Bd. Of Culinary/Bartender Tr. Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th

Cir. 2001)).

Apple’s brief superiority argument is that the proposed class will be hard to manage owing

to the difficulty in determining who is actually a class member. Specifically, Apple argues that

determining membership will be difficult because there is no “systematic way to identify which

current iPhone 4 and 4S users owned the same devices on April 16, 2014 and which operating

system they were running at the time.” Opp. at 24. Apple’s argument assumes that class

membership is limited to individuals who still own the iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S that they owned at

the time of the FaceTime Break. This assumption is mistaken. As Plaintiffs point out, the proposed

class definitions base class membership on whether an individual owned an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S

on April 16, 2014, i.e. when the FaceTime Break occurred. Thus, whether class members continue 

to own the same devices over 4 years later, or have sold them, given them away, or otherwise 

disposed of them is beside the point. What matters for class identification purposes is whether an 

individual owned an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S running iOS 6 on April 16, 2014. Apple has already 
43

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

indicated that it can provide this information. ECF No. 224-19 at 2 (Apple responding to 

interrogatory requesting identification of class members by “refer[ring] Plaintiffs to ... [a] report 

that shows the iOS version used by U.S. Apple iPhone 4 and/or iPhone 4S users as identified by 

serial number for each of April 15, 16th, and 17th of 2014 and ...[a] report ... that shows U.S.-

only Apple iPhone 4 and/or iPhone 4S users with iOS versions older than iOS 7, as identified by 

serial number, from April 16, 2014 onwards.”). 

In sum, Plaintiffs have established Rule 23(b)(3) superiority. Plaintiffs have also

established Rule 23(b)(3) predominance for the amended California class, and have satisfied the

requirements of Rule 23(a). The Court will therefore certify a Rule 23(b)(3) amended damages

class. The Court now turns to whether certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class is also appropriate.

D. Rule 23(b)(2)

Rule 23(b)(2) allows class treatment when ‘the party opposing the class has acted or

refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at

360 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)). “[U]nlike Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff does not need to show

predominance of common issues or superiority of class adjudication to certify a Rule 23(b)(2)

class.” In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 587. Rather, “[i]n contrast to Rule 23(b)(3) classes, the

focus [in a Rule 23(b)(2) class] is not on the claims of the individual class members, but rather

whether [the defendant] has engaged in a ‘common policy.” Id. at 599.

Plaintiffs’ 25 page motion for class certification devotes a single four-sentence paragraph

to argue for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. Of that paragraph, the only statement

approaching a legal argument is that “[c]ertification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper because Apple’s

wrongful conduct affected all Class members in the same way.” Mot. at 25. Underscoring the 

point, Plaintiffs do not specify the injunctive relief they seek in their complaint or their motion for 

class certification—both filings refer instead to a boilerplate request for “appropriate injunctive 

relief” or “injunctive relief to remedy Apple’s continuing wrongful conduct.” Compl. at 35; Mot. 
44

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

at 25. Similarly, over 14 months after filing this lawsuit, Plaintiffs refused on April 16, 2018, to 

respond to Apple’s interrogatory which requested that Plaintiffs “[i]dentify precisely the injunctive 

relief You seek in this case.” See ECF No. 199-5 at 1–2. Plaintiffs’ first attempt to define the 

injunctive relief at issue is in the reply to their motion for class certification, which has deprived

Apple of any chance to respond to their request. Reply at 15 (suggesting the Court should require 

Apple to “(i) disclos[e] when certificates are programmed to expire and what features will be 

affected; and (ii) allow iPhone devices to install earlier iOS versions”). The Court therefore finds 

that Plaintiffs’ argument as to the form of injunctive relief has been waived. Bazuaye v. INS, 79 

F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”); 

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”); John-Charles v. California, 646 F.3d 1243, 

1247 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding party “failed to develop any argument on this front, and thus has 

waived it”); see Diacakis v. Comcast Corp., 2013 WL 1878921, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) 

(finding injunctive relief request in motion for class certification “not well taken” when 

“request[ed] in a footnote which is devoid of any meaningful analysis”).

In sum, the Court denies certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Court now turns to

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.

E. Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike the report of Dr. Avi Rubin (“Dr. Rubin”), Apple’s

technical expert. ECF No. 200-4, First Declaration of Avi Rubin (“First Rubin Decl.”). Plaintiffs

object to four main aspects of Dr. Rubin’s report. First, Plaintiffs seek to strike Dr. Rubin’s

opinion that the FaceTime usage of Grace’s iPhone 4 is minimal. Second, Plaintiffs seek to strike

Dr. Rubin’s opinion that Potter is not typical of the class because the performance issues on his 32

GB iPhone 4 were due to Potter “jailbreaking” the 32 GB iPhone. Third, Plaintiffs seek to strike

Dr. Rubin’s opinion that Potter’s (un-jailbroken) 16 GB iPhone may not be typical because it was

subject to a factory reset. Fourth, Plaintiffs seek to strike Dr. Rubin’s testimony that Apple did not
45

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

intentionally cause the FaceTime Break.

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ attempt to strike Dr. Rubin’s analysis of Grace’s FaceTime 

usage. Plaintiffs’ main argument in support of striking this analysis is that Dr. Rubin initially 

stated that Grace did not use FaceTime, but later amended his report to state Grace’s iPhone 4 

used FaceTime at least once. ECF No. 223-4 at 1. However, the neutral evaluator who examined 

Grace’s iPhone 4 initially represented that it did not have any FaceTime calls logged, before later 

providing an output file indicating at least one FaceTime use occurred. ECF No. 223-4 at 2. Dr. 

Rubin’s amendment may therefore simply reflect this change. Plaintiffs can certainly crossexamine Dr. Rubin on the change at trial, but the change speaks to the weight of Dr. Rubin’s 

opinions rather than their admissibility. As this Court has noted, “[e]xpert testimony is admissible 

pursuant to Rule 702 if it is both relevant and reliable.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2018 WL 

3954587, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 

579, 589 (1993)). Dr. Rubin’s opinion that Grace used FaceTime infrequently, if at all, is highly

relevant to the underlying question of damages. Second Rubin Decl. at 16–17. The minimal

FaceTime usage on Grace’s iPhone 4 suggests the feature was not an important part of the iPhone 

4’s value, thereby undermining Plaintiffs’ theory that the FaceTime Break diminished affected 

iPhones’ value by 12 percent. Dr. Rubin’s opinion is also reliable given that he is a Professor of 

Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University with an extensive background in information 

security issues and has explained the bases for his conclusions in his report. Id. at 1–2, 16–17.

The Court also rejects Plaintiffs’ attempt to strike Dr. Rubin’s opinion that Potter’s 32 GB 

iPhone 4 cannot support typicality because performance problems may be attributable to 

jailbreaking. As explained above, the Court agrees with Apple that Potter’s clams based on his 

jailbroken 32 GB iPhone 4 are not typical of the class. Plaintiffs’ theory of the case is that the 

FaceTime Break harmed class members were harmed by forcing them to choose between (1) 

keeping iOS 6 and losing FaceTime, or (2) upgrading to iOS 7 and keeping FaceTime, but 

experiencing performance problems. Dr. Rubin’s opinion is therefore relevant because it means a 
46

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

jailbroken iPhone like Potter’s 32 GB iPhone 4 gives rise to the unique defense that performance 

issues are not, in fact, attributable to the FaceTime Break. See Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508 (“[C]lass

certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses

which threaten to become the focus of the litigation.”). Dr. Rubin’s opinion is also reliable because 

examining the potentially deleterious effects of jailbreaking on iPhone performance is based on his 

expertise in the information security area and he sets forth the bases for his opinion in his report.

Second Rubin Decl. at 18–24.

Finally, the Court declines to decide Plaintiffs’ remaining two contentions because they are 

not relevant at the class certification phase. The factory reset of Potter’s 16 GB iPhone 4 has no 

bearing on how much the FaceTime Break reduced the device’s market value, and that is the focal 

point of Plaintiffs’ case. Similarly, whether or not Apple intended to cause the FaceTime Break 

may be relevant to the ultimate liability determination but does not speak to whether or not a class 

can be certified at this juncture. 

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.

F. Evidentiary Objections

Apple has filed objections to evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in connection with 

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification. ECF No. 235. The Court DENIES Apple’s

objections because the Court would reach the same outcome with or without the material to which 

Apple objects. The only objected-to evidence referenced in the instant order is Dr. Hastings’s 

statement that “all major platforms benchmark their phone offers against wholesale market 

prices.” Hastings Reply Report at 19. Even if the Court’s decision depended on this evidence—

and it does not—the Court would find that considering the evidence was appropriate because 

Plaintiffs raise it in direct response to Defendants’ opposition brief. Opp. at 16 (“Dr. Hastings also 

relies on a misleading data set, while ignoring more relevant data regarding the value of class 

members’ phones. She does not evaluate the amount class members could have received for their

devices either before or after April 16, 2014.” (internal citation omitted)); Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. 
47

Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

Fish, 2016 WL 4382604, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) (court may consider reply evidence 

“offered in direct response” to issues raised in opposition); see Terrell v. Contra Costa Cty., 232 

F. App'x 626, 628–29 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence responding to recitation of facts in 

opposition is not “new” and may be considered on reply).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’

motion for class certification. The Court CERTIFIES a class seeking restitution and damages for

violation of the UCL and trespass to chattels pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):

All owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in

California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their

iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.

The Court APPOINTS Ken Potter, only as to his 16 GB iPhone 4, and Christina Grace as

representatives of the class. As Apple does not challenge the adequacy of proposed class counsel,

the Court also APPOINTS as class counsel Jill M. Manning of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas

Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, John Austin

Curry of Caldwell Cassady & Curry LLP, and David F.E. Tejtel of Friedman Oster & Tejtel

PLLC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge