Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/260073838/Apple-Motion-to-Dismiss-iPhone-Storage-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:12:41+00:00

Document:
Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2010 WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010), affd, 464 F. Appx 651 (9th Cir.
omitted other critical (and judicially noticeable) facts that are fatal to their claims of fraud.
Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
E.g., Compl. 1 (iOS 8 uses an unexpectedly large percentage of the storage capacity ).
than iOS 7, they should plead those facts. They have not and cannot.
more storage capacity than they contend was ever used by iOS 8.
the total Capacity Unavailable to User for various devices is as much as 3.7 GB. (Compl.
allegations regarding the size of iOS 8.
requests that the Court dismiss the entire Complaint with prejudice.
that they would be able to use 100% of the storage capacity of their devices to store personal data.
that this difference is more than consumer[s] anticipate[d]. (Compl. 26; see also, e.g., id.
never identify any statements to that effect that Plaintiffs personally saw or relied on.
limited to devices with only 8 or 16 GB of storage.
is less than 13 GB.).
devices often offer more available storage space than competitors devices.
iPhone is usually roughly 13GB.).
the 16GB phones were recently tested, giving you 12.6GB of memory (79%) to play with.).
cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
969 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted); Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1124.
fact) that upgrading to iOS 8 would require less than 0.61.3 GB.
plaintiffs prosecuting a private enforcement action under the UCLs fraud prong); Kwikset Corp.
misrepresentation claims); In re Actimmune Mktg. Litig., 2010 WL 3463491, at *8 (N.D. Cal.
reliance is required for CLRA actions).
making his decision to buy); Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., 2013 WL 675929, at *2 (N.D.
on statements on defendants website when plaintiff only relied on product packaging).
transaction as a result of [the] advertisements) (emphasis original); Low v. LinkedIn, 900 F.
representation or advertising in registering for or using the LinkedIn website).
states law governs the parties dispute and reserves all rights in that regard.
Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 838 (2006) (citing Bardin v.
would use.15 If that is Plaintiffs theory, it fails as a matter of law.
space (compared to iOS 7). See Williamson v. Apple, Inc., 2012 WL 3835104, at *67 (N.D. Cal.
widely known and was certainly not concealed, by Apple or anyone else. (See, e.g., Compl.
about product must be reasonable).
overheat when used in direct sunlight over time); Rice v. Sunbeam Prods. Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
uses substantially more storage space than the operating systems on competitors devices.
would require less than 0.61.3 GB.
Apples free iCloud service more than makes up for any excess capacity consumed by iOS 8.
GB of user-available storage capacity.
all other software ever created) takes up a portion of devices storage capacity.
Rule 9(b) to CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims).
purchase and what the defendant should have disclosed).
fraud cases would be pleaded with these words and be subject to the less stringent standard.
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Walgreen Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13908, at *20 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 8, 2010), affd, 631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1126.
allegedly omitted information. Marolda v. Symantec Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1002 (N.D.
operating system is software, and software is not a good for purposes of the CLRA.
It is axiomatic that Plaintiffs must have standing to bring claims in federal court, Lujan v.
2010) (same); Backhaut v. Apple, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162870, at *2930 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
19, 2014) (CLRA and UCL).
Id. at *5. See also Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., 2012 WL 1893818, at *5 & n.5 (C.D. Cal.
WL 476688, at *5); Stephenson v. Neutrogena Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105099, at *3 (N.D.
products that Plaintiffs never bought.
dismiss or a motion to strike, but these decisions are distinguishable. See, e.g., Morgan v.
brought on an individual basis.
cannot modify or enlarge any partys underlying substantive rights. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2072(b)).
cannot be used to expand the scope of a plaintiffs substantive rights.
Fla. Motion to Dismiss1 - Foreclosure - D.Graham Esq.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.