Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/378965959/order-denying-class-certification-in-iphone-6-touch-disease-case
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:49:32+00:00

Document:
25 Apple is the designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the iPhone smartphone. ECF No.
1 messages, capture video, browse the internet, and access applications, among other functions. Id.
3 iPhone 6 and 6 Plus both have a larger touchscreen than Apple’s prior iPhone models. Id. ¶ 30.
5 for a full refund. ECF No. 54-2.
13 … and/or solder ball cracks, both of which negatively affect the flow of electricity.” Id.
16 intermittent, but becomes permanent as time passes and the trace and solder ball cracks worsen.
18 inputs.” Id. at 7.
1 something that Apple described as “expected behavior.” ECF No. 173-18 at 15.
11 exceed all of our high quality standards to endure everyday, real life use.
and iPhone 6 Plus until May 2016. Id.
3 offers to reimburse consumers for amounts previously paid over $149. Id. ¶ 120.
5 exposing consumers to a number of materials in which Apple could have disclosed the defect.
12 defect in any of these materials.
13 Each named Plaintiff experienced the touchscreen defect after purchasing their iPhone.
15 issue in the instant motion for class certification. Mot. at 16–17.
5 and (9) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), Cal. Civ.
6 Code § 17290. See ECF No. 1.
25 1–2. The parties did not select any California statutory claims. See id.
27 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. ECF No. 58. On February 17, 2017, Apple filed a reply.
2 On March 14, 2017, the Court dismissed all 10 of the selected claims with leave to amend.
7 Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief.
19 law. Id. at *10.
2 Magnusson-Moss Act claim, which was dependent on Plaintiffs’ other warranty claims. Id.
7 under Pennsylvania law. ECF No. 85.
8 On April 4, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (“TACC”).
11 keynote address about the iPhone, and television commercials about the iPhone. See id. ¶¶ 8–20.
13 charge—Plaintiffs reviewed the iPhone box and information within the box. See id. ¶¶ 8–20.
18 2017, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. ECF No. 93. On June 6, 2017, Apple filed a reply. ECF No.
20 On July 25, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss.
27 consider doing so. Id. at *8–9.
10 time of the Plaintiffs’ purchases. See id. at *14–15.
24 design defects, and Plaintiffs alleged only a design defect. Davidson II, 2017 WL 3149305 at *24.
8 (“WCPA”) claim. These claims are now at issue in the instant motion for class certification.
13 the FACC. ECF No. 172. On January 17, 2018, Apple filed its Answer to the FACC. ECF No.
without underfill under the U2402 (Meson) integrated circuit chip.
Court and its staff.” Mot. at 3.
27 Apple has also filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert reports and testimony. ECF No. 187.
That motion is set for hearing on July 26, 2018.
. . . compliance with the Rule[.]” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
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).
plaintiff “satisf[ies] through evidentiary proof” at least one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b).
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R.
1 with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim[.]” Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr.
2 and denies certification under Rule 23(c)(4).3 The Court begins with standing.
10 injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.
15 representative party, not all of the class members, and has done so for many years.”).
21 each of Apple’s arguments in turn, and finds that none are persuasive.
California law should be applied classwide.
1 purchase.” Shank v. Presidio Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 510169, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018).
4 buy.” Coleman-Anacleto v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2016 WL 4729302, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
7 misrepresentations are substantially similar.” Young v. Cree, Inc., 2018 WL 1710181, at *9 (N.D.
8 Cal. Apr. 9, 2018) (quoting Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 881, 890 (N.D.
9 Cal. 2012)); see also Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 2012 WL 2990766, at *11 (N.D.
12 10; Reply at 10–11.
23 caused the injury were not identical in every respect.” Bruton, 2014 WL 172111, at *8.
1 6 Plus has a slightly different internal configuration; (3) the iPhone 6 Plus has a higher defect rate.
11 both [products] is predicated on the same alleged wrongful conduct”).
18 *15–16 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2016); Lohr v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2017 WL 1037555, at *4 (W.D.
19 Wash. Mar. 17, 2017).
7 has suffered the same harm as the Illinois class members he seeks to represent.
18 903–04 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (discussing Mazza and reaching same conclusion).
24 511 F.3d at 985); see also Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 865 (9th Cir.
25 2014) (post-Mazza decision citing Bates as good law).
3 standing.” Id. at 542; accord Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, 2016 WL 6070490, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
7 suffered injury).4 The Court has already concluded that all six named plaintiffs have standing.
8 Thus, Apple’s challenge fails.
13 (3) the named plaintiffs’ standing is enough to satisfy Article III.
10 created right.” Shady Grove, 559 U.S. at 423 (Stevens, J., concurring).
22 to engage in any deceptive trade practice listed in this article shall be liable....”).
the law by the legislature, not a rule of general procedure. See id.
Id. at *27; accord Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc., 2015 WL 8479746, at *2–5 (D.
2 than Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and the class action restriction is enforceable”).
3 Plaintiffs do not dispute that the CCPA contains a bar on class actions for damages.
8 (citing In re Hydroxycut Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 299 F.R.D. 648, 653–54 (S.D. Cal.
9 2014)) (finding CCPA bar does not apply under Shady Grove).
12 authority, the Court is not inclined to overlook the statute’s plain language.
16 the splintered [Shady Grove] decision is its specific result.” Hydroxycut, 299 F.R.D. at 653.
17 Although other courts have agreed, Hydroxycut’s interpretation appears to be the minority view.
18 Wittman v. CB1, Inc., 2016 WL 3093427, at *5 (D. Mont. June 1, 2016) (collecting cases).
25 the Court will follow Myford Touch I and Friedman and hold that the CCPA bar applies here. Cf.
2 damages under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) are barred.
8 F.3d at 588. The Court takes each requirement in turn.
21 permissively, and all questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule.” Ellis v.
5 Serv., 800 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
11 was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, and whether Apple is liable for punitive damages.
16 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (quoting Ries v. Ariz. Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 537 (N.D.
18 Plaintiffs’ claim that the iPhones were defective and that Apple knew of the problem beforehand.
21 564 U.S. at 350).
2 need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir.
18 interest and suffered the same injury as the class members.’” Wolin, 617 F.3d at 1175 (quoting E.
19 Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977)).
6 on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.
15 meet the adequacy requirement.
24 Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel meets the adequacy requirement.
1 23(b)(3), beginning with the predominance requirement.
5 class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Fed. R. Civ.
7 classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., Inc.
whether common questions predominate over individual questions. Amgen, 133 S.
these principles in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ predominance arguments.
Apple knowingly concealed the defect, and whether this was a material omission.” Mot. at 18.
20 which in practice is similar to reliance. See Mednick v. Precor, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 140, 150 (N.D. Ill.
would prove problematic. Thus, the Court’s analysis centers on reliance and exposure.
Guide was inside the iPhone box, which was not opened until after purchase.
5 cause on a classwide basis as well.” Id. at 999.
20 other grounds, 635 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2011).
24 found that there is a “a rebuttable presumption of reliance for [W]CPA fraud claims.” Blough v.
5 Blough, 2014 WL 3694231, at *13.
9 practice, the TDTPA does not. Both parties focus their attention on Henry Schein, Inc. v.
17 cases a near-impossibility.” Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Pina, 165 S.W.3d 416, 423 (Tex. App.
be proved with class-wide proof; class-wide proof requires the existence of class-wide evidence.
relied on the misrepresentation.” Pina, 165 S.W.3d at 423 (internal citations omitted).
7 certification of Plaintiffs’ TDTPA class claims.
25 box, the materials inside the iPhone box, the setup process, and subsequent software updates.
(via software updates, press releases, and emails).”).
5 members saw the iPhone box before purchase, and that this is enough to establish exposure.
6 Plaintiffs’ first argument is unpersuasive, but the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ second argument.
22 n.5. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not established that exposure could occur after sale.
7 exposed to allegedly misleading omissions); In re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec.
9 misrepresentation case where misrepresentations to class members were substantially identical).
21 outside of the packaging of every unit for an extended period.”); Johns v. Bayer Corp., 280 F.R.D.
27 definition bought an iPhone also saw the box.
13 iPhone boxes when they purchased iPhones from third-party retailers.
15 rejected by the court in Brickman v. Fitbit, Inc., 2017 WL 5569827 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017).
17 online, and that online purchasers may not have read the allegedly deceptive statements. Id. at *5.
23 when buying the iPhone online.
4 position as those who bought in physical stores.”).
12 disclosure stickers that may or may not have been provided to class members. 881 F.3d at 704.
14 exposed to in the course of buying their iPhones. This is sufficient to establish exposure.
25 then, Apple’s argument only applies to Plaintiffs’ claims under Florida law.
26 Apple relies on Kia Motors America Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
10 the bargain” model should be applied whether or not a class member had encountered the defect.
13 Switch Litig., 2016 WL 3920353, at *25–27 (doing same).
17 with both Florida law and the Ninth Circuit’s approach to manifestation. See also Keegan v. Am.
22 mentioned only in connection with the court’s description of the allegations in the complaint.”).
12 susceptible to proof by generalized evidence.” Id.
24 The Court need not decide at this stage which party is correct. See Amgen Inc. v.
13 inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3), see Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir.
22 Touch I, 2016 WL 7734558, at *15.
is no reference to a damages model in the report.
20 the $200 defect. Id.
around $150, including parts and labor. ECF No. 174-38 at 25.
7 subjective willingness to pay, or demand, without considering the supply side of the equation.
11 In re NJOY, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1119 (discussing same issue).
12 Apple’s premise is flawed; Boedeker accounts for the supply side of the equation.
23 regardless of price in this region of the graph.” In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 291 F. Supp.
27 consumers’ willingness to pay.
2 cases on which Apple relies. See, e.g., Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2014 WL 7338930, at *5 (C.D.
Plaintiffs subsequently attempt to distance themselves from these figures. Reply at 14 n.29.
Plaintiffs nowhere provide an alternative estimate of the manifestation rate.
8 liability rests on the risk that the defect might manifest, not that the defect is certain to manifest.
9 Thus, the model fails to satisfy Comcast.
20 touchscreen defect “approximately 95% of the time.” FACC ¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19.
2 misrepresented security features at issue).
5 attributable” to Plaintiffs’ theory of liability. Comcast, 569 U.S. at 35.
13 more broadly, the Court now turns to Rule 23(b)(3) superiority in the interest of thoroughness.
3 F.R.D. 590, 622 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Local Joint Executive Bd. Of Culinary/Bartender Tr.
6 finds that Plaintiffs have established superiority.
12 of litigation. Consequently, this factor points towards certification.
19 of certification because Apple is based in this district.
26 available to” district courts).
6 statutory differences preclude a finding of manageability.
8 legal questions to be answered are substantively the same.” Saltzman v. Pella Corp., 257 F.R.D.
17 1121, 1128 (quoting Mullins, 795 F.3d at 663).
Services (Michigan) may seek injunctive relief as a remedy. ECF No. 103, at 51.
1 of class certification motions.
12 which is devoid of any meaningful analysis”).
20 certification of a liability class under Rule 23(c)(4).
24 Tasion Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 308 F.R.D. 630, 633 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
3 achieving judicial economy and efficiency.’” Kamakahi v. Am. Soc'y for Reprod. Med., 305 F.R.D.
2 certification fails to show why certification would materially advance the litigation as a whole.
3 The Court therefore denies Rule 23(c)(4) certification.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

References: § 17290
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.