Marcus et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 56

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING [re 49 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Uriel Marcus]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/2/2015. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

URIEL MARCUS, BENEDICT
VERCELES, and Others Similarly
Situated,

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.

REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

APPLE INC.,

15

Defendant.
/

16
17

No. C 14-03824 WHA

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

18

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

19

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

20

(PAC ¶ 51).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

on March 5.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: March 2, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2