In re Nexus 6P Products Liability Litigation
Filing
115
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 38 HUAWEI'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 39 GOOGLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/5/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
8
Case No. 17-cv-02185-BLF
15
ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND IN PART AND WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART HUAWEI’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND TO STRIKE CLASS
ALLEGATIONS; GRANTING WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
16
[Re: ECF 38, 39]
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IN RE NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
12
13
14
17
In this putative consumer class action, Plaintiffs Roy Berry, Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi,
18
Alex Gorbatchev, Brian Christensen, Anthony Martorello, Khanh Tran, Edward Beheler, Yuriy
19
Davydov, Rebecca Harrison, Zachary Himes, Taylor Jones, Paul Servodio, Justin Leone, James
20
Poore, Jr., and Kenneth Johnston (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege severe defects in their Nexus 6P
21
smartphones. Plaintiffs sued the companies that developed the phone—Huawei Device USA, Inc.
22
(“Huawei”) and Google LLC (“Google”)—for breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
23
Their twenty-three causes of action span a litany of state laws and one federal statute.
24
25
26
27
28
Presently before the Court are Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations (“Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss”), Huawei Mot., ECF
38; and Google’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Google’s Motion to
Dismiss”), Google Mot., ECF 39. In a previous order, the Court granted with leave to amend
1
Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Huawei.
2
ECF 113. Here, the Court dives into the merits of Huawei’s and Google’s Motions to Dismiss,
3
which assert that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted and that
4
Plaintiffs’ class allegations should be stricken.
The Court held a hearing on these motions on January 18, 2018. The Court has considered
5
6
the arguments presented at oral argument and in the briefing, as well as the submitted evidence
7
and applicable law. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO
8
AMEND IN PART, GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART, AND DENIES IN
9
PART Huawei’s and Google’s Motions to Dismiss. The Court DENIES Huawei’s and Google’s
motions to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
I.
12
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”), ECF
13
28. In September 2015, Google unveiled the Nexus 6P, the newest version of its Nexus 6
14
smartphone. CAC ¶ 165. Google and Huawei created the Nexus 6P together, with Google
15
handling software development and Huawei handling device manufacture. Id. At the launch
16
event and in advertising, Google touted many of the superior features of the phone. See id. ¶¶ 7,
17
169, 171.
18
Unfortunately, according to the CAC, the Nexus 6P suffers from two defects. First, some
19
phones unexpectedly turn off and, upon turning back on, experience an endless bootloop cycle (the
20
“Bootloop Defect”). Id. ¶ 174. When the Bootloop Defect manifests, the phone becomes
21
nonoperational and all unsaved data is lost because the phone cannot proceed beyond the start-up
22
screen. Id. ¶ 175. Second, some phones prematurely shut off despite showing a battery charge of
23
anywhere from 15–90% (the “Battery Drain Defect”). Id. ¶ 177. When the Battery Drain Defect
24
manifests, the phone remains dead until the user reconnects it to power. Id. ¶ 178. After some
25
charging, the battery shows the same or similar charge as indicated before the premature shut-off.
26
Id.; see also id. ¶ 61. Complaints about the Bootloop and Battery Drain Defects began cropping
27
up online as early as September and October 2016. Id. ¶¶ 175, 184, 187–88.
28
This putative class action was commenced on April 19, 2017. ECF 1. Plaintiffs filed the
2
1
operative complaint—the CAC—on May 23, 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class
2
of customers who purchased or own a Nexus 6P. CAC ¶¶ 1, 205. They also propose twelve
3
statewide subclasses, which cover all persons or entities in the states of California, Florida,
4
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,
5
and Washington who purchased or own at least one Nexus 6P. Id. ¶ 205.
Plaintiffs bring twenty-three causes of action against both Huawei and Google under a
6
7
spattering of state laws and one federal law. At the high level, their claims fall into three buckets:
8
(1) warranty claims, (2) fraud claims, and (3) unjust enrichment claims. Their warranty claims
9
consist of claims for (1) breach of express warranty on behalf of the nationwide class or each
statewide subclass, (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
nationwide class or each statewide subclass, (3) violation of the California Song–Beverly
12
Consumer Warranty Act on behalf of the California subclass, and (4) violation of the federal
13
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act presumably on behalf of the nationwide class. Id. ¶¶ 213–67,
14
284–96. Their fraud claims consist of (1) a common-law claim for deceit and fraudulent
15
concealment on behalf of each statewide subclass and (2) claims for violations of state consumer
16
protection statutes on behalf of the relevant statewide subclass.1 Id. ¶¶ 268–77, 297–535. Finally,
17
their unjust enrichment claims are asserted on behalf of the nationwide class based on the
18
universal principles of equity. Id. ¶¶ 278–83.
In June 2017, Huawei and Google filed their Motions to Dismiss. Huawei’s argument
19
20
regarding lack of personal jurisdiction was addressed in a prior order. See ECF 113. Here, the
21
Court focuses on the sufficiency of the CAC. Specifically, both Huawei’s and Google’s Motions
22
to Dismiss assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts entitling them to relief on their
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Specifically, the state consumer protection statutes are: the California Unfair Competition Law,
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer Sales Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York General Business Law
§§ 349–350, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the North Dakota
Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
3
1
claims. Huawei Mot. 9–28; Google Mot. 3–29. Huawei and Google also request that the Court
2
strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations. Huawei Mot. 26–28; Google Mot. 29.
3
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
4
A.
Rule 12(b)(6)
5
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
6
claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation
7
Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d
8
729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts
9
as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the
10
plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
However, the Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly
12
subject to judicial notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
13
fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.
14
2008) (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)). While a
15
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter,
16
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
17
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
18
facially plausible when the alleged facts “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that
19
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
20
B.
Rule 12(f)
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to “strike from a pleading an
22
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The
23
function of a motion made under this rule is “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that
24
must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.”
25
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v.
26
Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
27
510 U.S. 517 (1994)). “While a Rule 12(f) motion provides the means to excise improper
28
materials from pleadings, such motions are generally disfavored because the motions may be used
4
1
as delaying tactics and because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits.” Barnes v.
2
AT & T Pension Ben. Plan–Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal.
3
2010).
The decision to strike a portion of a party’s pleading is within the sound discretion of the
4
5
court. Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000). If allegations are stricken,
6
leave to amend should be freely given when doing so would not cause prejudice to the opposing
7
party. See Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).
8
9
III.
DISCUSSION
Both Huawei and Google contend that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts
entitling them to relief on their claims. Before turning to the merits of those arguments, the Court
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
addresses Google’s request for judicial notice.
12
A.
Request for Judicial Notice
13
In connection with its Motion to Dismiss, Google seeks judicial notice of two documents:
14
Google’s U.S. Terms of Sale and the Nexus 6P webpage. ECF 57. Portions of the documents are
15
referenced in the CAC, and both are capable of accurate and ready determination because they are
16
publicly available online. These documents are properly subject to judicial notice. See Fed. R.
17
Evid. 201(b); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs did not formally
18
object to Google’s request. Accordingly, Google’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
19
B.
Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
20
Huawei and Google contend that Plaintiffs’ CAC provides insufficient allegations to
21
properly plead their causes of action. The Court begins by making some general observations
22
about changes that should be made to any amended pleading. The Court then addresses the
23
sufficiency of an allegation important to many of Plaintiffs’ claims—namely, whether Huawei and
24
Google had knowledge of the defects at the time of sale. Finally, the Court proceeds to analyze
25
separately the claims asserted against Huawei and the claims asserted against Google.
26
27
28
1.
General Observations
The Court starts with a couple general observations about the pleadings. First, in their
twenty-three causes of actions, Plaintiffs often lump Huawei and Google together, alleging
5
1
conduct by “Defendants” without distinguishing what Huawei did from what Google did. See,
2
e.g., CAC ¶¶ 230 (“Defendants received timely notice of the breaches experienced by Plaintiffs
3
and Class members. Defendants were provided notice of the Defects by complaints lodged by
4
consumers before or within a reasonable amount of time after the allegations of the Defects
5
became public.”), 241 (“Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the
6
Phones they sold are not of a merchantable quality, but instead contain a Bootloop Defect and a
7
Battery Drain Defect.”), 270 (“Defendants concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the
8
performance and quality of the Phones, and the quality of the Huawei, Google, and Nexus brands.
9
Specifically, Defendants knew (or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known) of
the Defects, but failed to disclose them prior to or at the time they marketed Phones and sold them
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
to consumers.”). As discussed in more detail below with respect to particular causes of action, this
12
setup obfuscates what roles Huawei and Google independently played in the alleged harm and
13
whether either is liable for its own conduct. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Blue Source Grp., Inc., 125 F.
14
Supp. 3d 945, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2015). In an amended pleading, Plaintiffs “must identify what
15
action each Defendant took that caused Plaintiffs’ harm, without resort to generalized allegations
16
against Defendants as a whole.” In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2011
17
WL 4403963, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011).
Second, Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
18
19
and unjust enrichment on behalf of a nationwide class but do not specify what law governs.2 As
20
discussed in more detail below with respect to these individual causes of action, the failure to
21
identify the relevant law makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to provide a thorough
22
analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims. Throughout this order, the Court often uses the law that the parties
23
apply in their briefing without elaborating on other potentially applicable state laws.3 In any
24
2
25
26
27
28
For the breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty claims, Plaintiffs alternatively
assert that the claims may proceed under the applicable state law as to each of the twelve statewide
subclasses. CAC ¶¶ 215, 236.
3
The parties are advised that in future briefing, to the extent they ask the Court to decide matters
on the basis of several states’ laws, they should be mindful of, and squarely address, whether there
are material variations in state law. Cf. In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., 881 F.3d 679,
702 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying a settlement class
“by failing to acknowledge . . . that the laws in various states were materially different than those
6
1
amended version of the pleadings, Plaintiffs should clarify what law governs each cause of action.
2
Additionally, causes of action should not group together multiple sources of law; rather, Plaintiffs
3
should plead separate causes of actions for each source of law, whether federal or state.
4
5
2.
Huawei’s and Google’s Knowledge of Defects at the Time of Sale
Whether Huawei and Google had knowledge of the defects at the time that Plaintiffs
6
purchased their phones is a common thread through many of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Indeed, many
7
of Plaintiffs’ causes of action either start from the premise or entirely depend on the fact that
8
Huawei and Google knew, or reasonably should have had known, of the defects at the time of sale.
9
Therefore, the Court begins by examining the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ allegations on that
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
score, as the answer colors the analysis of many of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
At multiple points in the CAC, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants knew (or exercising due
12
diligence should have known) that the Phones were defective at the time of sale.” CAC ¶ 246; see
13
also, e.g., id. ¶¶ 6, 186, 226, 270, 281, 318, 322, 335, 359. However, that statement is conclusory,
14
and the CAC does not contain sufficient factual matter to make that inference plausible.
15
The key issue here is timing. The Nexus 6P was released in September 2015. Id. ¶ 165.
16
In the CAC, Plaintiffs provide multiple examples of consumers posting online about the Bootloop
17
and Battery Drain Defects, but do not provide specific dates for any of those postings. Id. ¶ 184.
18
Plaintiffs do not allege that Huawei ever saw or responded to these online complaints, let alone
19
that Huawei knew about them before Plaintiffs purchased their phones. See Wilson v. Hewlett-
20
Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1147 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[C]ourts have rejected undated customer
21
complaints offered as a factual basis for a manufacturer’s knowledge of a defect because they
22
provide no indication whether the manufacturer was aware of the defect at the time of sale.”).
23
Although Plaintiffs allege particular dates for Google’s online responses to the postings,
24
those responses postdate Plaintiffs’ purchases. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that a Google
25
representative responded to customer complaints about the Bootloop Defect in September 2016,
26
27
28
in California, and that these variations prevented the court from applying only California law” and
“failing to make a final ruling as to whether the material variations in state law defeated
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)”).
7
1
stating: “We understand that a very small number of users are experiencing a bootloop issue on
2
your device. We are continuing to investigate the situation, but can confirm that this is strictly a
3
hardware related issue.” CAC ¶ 187. Nevertheless, all Plaintiffs who allege that their phones
4
manifested the Bootloop Defect purchased their phones before September 2016. See id. ¶¶ 19
5
(Gorbatchev: Oct. 2015), 28 (Christensen: Nov. 2015), 38 (Martorello: May 2016), 52 (Tran: Jan.
6
2016), 70 (Berry: Nov. 2015), 119 (Servodio: Mar. 2016).
7
Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that a Google representative responded to customer complaints
8
about the Battery Drain Defect in October 2016, stating: “Just want to let you all know that [the
9
Battery Drain Defect] is something we have been keeping track of, and our team is investigating.
. . . [M]any of you are reporting that you have been experiencing abnormal battery drain for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
multiple days now.” Id. ¶ 188. Again, no Plaintiffs who allege that their phones manifested the
12
Battery Drain Defect purchased their phones after the October 2016 statement by Google’s
13
representative. See id. ¶¶ 12 (Makcharoenwoodhi: Apr. 2016), 28 (Christensen: Nov. 2015), 38
14
(Martorello: May 2016), 58 (Beheler: July 2016), 70 (Berry: Nov. 2015), 79 (Davydov: Dec.
15
2015), 91 (Harrison: Apr. 2016), 99 (Himes: Mar. 2016), 111 (Jones: Jan. 2016), 130 (Leone: Oct.
16
2015), 142 (Poore: Feb. 2016), 153 (Johnston: Oct. 2016).
17
Without that crucial temporal element, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Huawei
18
or Google knew (or reasonably should have known) of the defects when Plaintiffs purchased their
19
phones. This factual gap is not filled by allegations that some Plaintiffs contacted Huawei and
20
Google about the defects, as most of those conversations took place after October 2016 or are not
21
alleged to have taken place on a specific date. See id. ¶¶ 15, 23, 30–31, 33, 54, 63–64, 67, 72–73,
22
83–85, 94, 113, 133, 147, 155. The two Plaintiffs who contacted Huawei and Google before
23
September 2016 are not enough, see id. ¶¶ 41–43, 102, because a handful of complaints do not, by
24
themselves, plausibly show that Huawei or Google had knowledge of the defects and concealed
25
the defects from customers. See Berenblat v. Apple, Inc., No. 08-CV-04969-JF, 2010 WL
26
1460297, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) (reaching the same conclusion and explaining that
27
allegations about “complaints posted on Apple’s consumer website merely establish the fact that
28
some consumers were complaining”); see also Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 09-CV-059468
1
RS, 2011 WL 317650, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (“Awareness of a few customer complaints,
2
however, does not establish knowledge of an alleged defect.”).
3
Perhaps sensing this deficiency, Plaintiffs shift gears in their opposition, positing that
4
“[t]he Nexus 6P phones contain core component flaws that basic product testing would have
5
disclosed at or near the time of manufacture.” Opp’n 42. Whatever the viability of that theory, it
6
finds no basis in the CAC. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, the allegation that “Defendants had
7
superior knowledge and access to the relevant facts,” CAC ¶ 272, does not equate to an allegation
8
that straightforward testing would have revealed the defects.
9
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Huawei or Google had knowledge of the defects
at the time that Plaintiffs purchased their phones. Plaintiffs may amend the CAC to allege further
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
facts in support of knowledge. With that conclusion in mind, the Court turns first to the claims
12
asserted against Huawei and then to the claims asserted against Google.
3.
13
14
Claims Asserted Against Huawei
In broad strokes, the CAC asserts three categories of claims against Huawei—warranty
15
claims, fraud claims, and unjust enrichment claims. The Court addresses each of these categories
16
one at a time.
17
18
a.
Warranty Claims
Plaintiffs assert four sets of warranty claims: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of
19
the implied warranty of merchantability, (3) violation of the California Song–Beverly Consumer
20
Warranty Act, and (4) violation of the federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. Huawei moves to
21
dismiss all four causes of action. The Court addresses each in turn.
22
23
i.
Breach of Express Warranty
Plaintiffs bring their first cause of action for breach of express warranty on behalf of a
24
putative nationwide class but do not specify which law governs the claim. CAC ¶ 214.
25
Alternatively, they assert claims for breach of express warranty on behalf of the putative statewide
26
subclasses under the laws of the respective states. Id. ¶ 215.
27
28
Huawei provides a written Limited Warranty for phones, tablets, wearables, PCs, and
accessories. Huawei Mot., Ex. A. The Limited Warranty provides: “Huawei Device USA Inc.,
9
1
(‘Huawei’) represents and warrants to the original purchaser (‘Purchaser’) that Huawei’s phones
2
and accessories (‘Product’) are free from material defects, including improper or inferior
3
workmanship, materials, and design, during the designated warranty period . . . when used
4
normally and in accordance with all operating instructions.” Id., Preamble. For phones, the
5
“designated warranty period” is “12 months from the date of purchase.” Id. ¶ 1.
6
Under the terms of the Limited Warranty, Huawei agrees to “repair or replace at Huawei’s
sole option, any parts of the Product that are defective or malfunctioning during normal usage.”
8
Id. ¶ 4. However, “Huawei does not warrant that the operation of [the phone] will be
9
uninterrupted or error-free.” Id. ¶ 8. Moreover, the Limited Warranty becomes “null and void” if
10
the Purchaser does not notify Huawei “of the alleged defect or malfunction of the Product during
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
the applicable warranty period.” Id. ¶ 9.
12
Huawei moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims. Huawei first contends that,
13
for a handful of Plaintiffs, there are insufficient allegations to establish that Huawei breached the
14
Limited Warranty. Huawei Mot. 10–11. Huawei then asserts a number of inadequacies applicable
15
to different groupings of Plaintiffs. Specifically, Huawei contends that certain Plaintiffs have not
16
adequately alleged that they provided Huawei notice and an opportunity to cure, that they relied on
17
Huawei’s Limited Warranty, or that they were in privity with Huawei. Id. at 11–12. The Court
18
trudges through each of these various grounds for dismissal.
19
20
(1)
Breach and Unconscionability
Huawei contends that it did not breach the Limited Warranty for those Plaintiffs whose
21
phones manifested the defects outside the one-year warranty period and those Plaintiffs who did
22
not notify Huawei of defects during the one-year warranty period. Huawei Mot. 10. Specifically,
23
Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Christensen, and Tran allege that their phones failed more than a year after
24
purchase. CAC ¶¶ 19, 21 (Gorbatchev), 28–29 (Christensen), 52–53 (Tran). Plaintiffs Berry,
25
Jones, and Leone do not allege that they notified Huawei of any defect before the expiration of one
26
year. Id. ¶¶ 70–78 (Berry), 111–18 (Jones), 128–41 (Leone). Plaintiffs do not dispute that these
27
Plaintiffs fall outside the Limited Warranty but instead argue that the one-year warranty limitation
28
10
1
is unconscionable.4
Because Plaintiffs and Huawei address the unconscionability issue under California law
2
3
and identify no material differences in other state laws, the Court uses California law as the basis
4
for its analysis. Under California law, a contract provision is “unconscionable, and therefore
5
unenforceable, only if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.” In re iPhone,
6
2011 WL 4403963, at *7 (citing Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669,
7
690 (Cal. 2000)); see also Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc., 601 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining
8
that, under California law, “both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present for
9
the contract to be declared unenforceable”). “The procedural element of unconscionability
focuses on two factors: oppression and surprise.” Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
555, 564 (Ct. App. 2006). “The substantive element of unconscionability focuses on the actual
12
terms of the agreement and evaluates whether they create ‘overly harsh’ or ‘one-sided’ results as
13
to ‘shock the conscience.’” Id. (citation omitted).
14
At most, Plaintiffs have made a weak showing that the Limited Warranty’s one-year
15
duration provision is procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiffs contend that the Limited Warranty is
16
unconscionable because Huawei and its customers are in an unequal bargaining position, where
17
customers cannot negotiate warranty terms. CAC ¶¶ 226, 246. The bargaining positions of
18
Huawei and its customers are not as imbalanced as Plaintiffs suggest because Plaintiffs have not
19
adequately alleged that Huawei knew of and concealed the defects at the time of sale. See In re
20
Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F. Supp.
21
2d 1077, 1101 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (rejecting argument that defendant had superior bargaining power
22
where plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the defendant knew of the defect before the point
23
of sale). Even if the terms of the Limited Warranty are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not plead that
24
they had no meaningful alternatives; they could have purchased other phones or obtained
25
additional warranty protections from Huawei. Davidson v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-CV-04942-LHK,
26
27
28
4
The Court finds it unnecessary at this stage to address Plaintiffs’ contention that Huawei’s
Limited Warranty fails of its essential purpose, Opp’n 19–21, because that does not appear to be a
ground on which Huawei argues for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims.
11
1
2017 WL 976048, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017). Moreover, the CAC does not allege that
2
Plaintiffs were “surprised” by the Limited Warranty’s terms or that they could not or did not
3
access Huawei’s Limited Warranty online at the time of purchase. See id.
Plaintiffs make no allegations relevant to substantive unconscionability. Courts have
5
rejected substantive unconscionability arguments where, as here, the duration of the express
6
warranty “corresponds to the maximum limit permitted under [state] law” for implied warranties.
7
Marchante v. Sony Corp. of Am., 801 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1023 (S.D. Cal. 2011); see also Bros. v.
8
Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 06-CV-02254-RMW, 2006 WL 3093685, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31,
9
2006) (explaining that, in general, “a time limitation, by itself, is not unconscionable”). Plaintiffs’
10
allegations do not show that the one-year duration “create[s] overly harsh or one-sided results as to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
shock the conscience,” and thus Plaintiffs have not established substantive unconscionability.
12
Aron, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 564 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
13
Based on the allegations in the CAC, Huawei’s one-year Limited Warranty is not
14
unconscionable, and the Limited Warranty is enforceable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not stated
15
a claim for breach of express warranty for Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Christensen, and Tran whose
16
phone defect manifested after the one-year Limited Warranty expired or for Plaintiffs Berry,
17
Jones, and Leone who did not notify Huawei of a defect within the one-year Limited Warranty
18
period. The Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiffs
19
Gorbatchev, Christensen, Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone with leave to amend to allege further facts
20
in support of Plaintiffs’ unconscionability argument.
21
22
(2)
Notice and Opportunity to Cure
For many of those same Plaintiffs, Huawei relatedly argues that the failure to give Huawei
23
notice or an opportunity to cure is fatal to their claims. Huawei Mot. 11–12. In particular,
24
Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Tran, Berry, and Leone do not allege that they contacted Huawei to seek
25
repairs. Id. at 12. Additionally, Plaintiff Beheler does not allege that he allowed Huawei to act on
26
its offer to repair or replace his phone. Id. Due to the variations in state law on this issue, the
27
Court proceeds through each Plaintiff’s state-law claim individually.
28
12
(a)
1
California
Beyond California Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s falling outside the terms of Huawei’s Limited
2
3
Warranty, California law does not supply an independent notice-related bar to his express
4
warranty claim. As a general matter, a “buyer must, within a reasonable time after he or she
5
discovers or should have discovered any breach, notify the seller of breach or be barred from any
6
remedy.” Cal. Com. Code § 2607(3)(A). And it is true that Plaintiff Gorbatchev does not allege
7
that he contacted Huawei to seek repairs. CAC ¶¶ 19–27. But notice is not required in an action
8
by consumers “against manufacturers with whom they have not dealt.” Greenman v. Yuba Power
9
Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 900 (Cal. 1963). Other district courts have applied this exception to
the specific notice provision at issue here, § 2607(3)(A). See, e.g., In re Toyota Motor Corp.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1180
12
(C.D. Cal. 2010) (denying motion to dismiss for failure to provide § 2607(3)(A) notice); Aaronson
13
v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 09-CV-01333-W, 2010 WL 625337, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2010)
14
(same).
15
Here, Plaintiff Gorbatchev asserts his express warranty claim against Huawei. The
16
allegations in the CAC support that Huawei is a manufacturer with whom Plaintiff Gorbatchev has
17
never dealt. Plaintiff Gorbatchev did not purchase his Nexus 6P phone from Huawei; instead, he
18
purchased his phone through the Google Store. CAC ¶ 19. After his phone began exhibiting the
19
Bootloop Defect, he interacted solely with Google in an unsuccessful attempt to secure a new
20
phone under the warranty. Id. ¶¶ 23–24. Because Plaintiff Gorbatchev is not required to provide
21
notice to manufacturer Huawei, his claim cannot be dismissed on this ground.
22
(b)
Illinois
23
Under Illinois law, notice is an “essential element” of a breach of warranty claim.
24
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021, 1025 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
25
Thus, “failure to allege sufficient notice may be a fatal defect in a complaint alleging breach of
26
warranty.” Id. A manufacturer’s general awareness of problems is insufficient; to fulfill the
27
notice obligation, the buyer normally must contact the manufacturer directly and inform the
28
manufacturer of the defect in the particular product he purchased. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
13
1
675 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ill. 1996). The Illinois Supreme Court has enumerated two exceptions:
2
direct notice is unnecessary (1) when the seller has actual knowledge of the defect of the particular
3
product and (2) when a buyer files a complaint claiming personal injuries. Id. at 590.
The allegations of Illinois Plaintiff Tran do not withstand scrutiny under these standards.
5
As noted above, Plaintiff Tran is not alleged to have informed Huawei of the Bootloop Defect in
6
his phone. Indeed, there is no allegation that he contacted Huawei at all. CAC ¶¶ 52–57. Nor can
7
Plaintiff Tran rely on the first notice exception because the CAC does not aver that other
8
circumstances put Huawei on notice that there was an issue with Plaintiff Tran’s phone. Under the
9
cases, Huawei’s alleged general awareness of the defects in Nexus 6P phones is insufficient. See
10
Connick, 675 N.E.2d at 590 (“[G]eneralized knowledge about the safety concerns of third parties
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
is insufficient to fulfill plaintiffs’ UCL notice requirement.”). The second exception also is
12
inapplicable in this consumer defect suit where none of the Plaintiffs, let alone Plaintiff Tran,
13
assert that he or she suffered any personal injury. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s
14
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Tran’s express warranty claim with leave to amend to allege further
15
facts about Huawei’s awareness of the defects in Plaintiff Tran’s phone, either through direct
16
notice from Plaintiff Tran or other circumstances.
17
(c)
Indiana
18
Indiana law, too, requires that the buyer give notice to the seller before bringing suit for
19
breach of warranty. Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-607(3)(a). But unlike similar provisions in other
20
states, Indiana’s notification law “is satisfied if the seller has ‘actual knowledge’ that the goods are
21
nonconforming.” Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir. 2011); see
22
also Agrarian Grain Co. v. Meeker, 526 N.E.2d 1189, 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (“[T]he notice
23
required by [the Indiana statute] is satisfied by the [seller’s] actual knowledge there are some
24
problems with the goods.”). Here, the allegations demonstrate that Huawei knew that Indiana
25
Plaintiff Beheler’s Nexus 6P phone manifested the Battery Drain Defect and that he was
26
dissatisfied with the phone. See CAC ¶ 64 (alleging that Plaintiff Beheler “called Huawei’s
27
customer support” and “[a] Huawei representative agreed that the Phone was defective”). That
28
Huawei offered to repair or replace the phone and Plaintiff Beheler apparently never responded,
14
1
id., does not change the analysis, as the Limited Warranty does not explicitly require Plaintiff
2
Beheler to give Huawei a reasonable opportunity to cure. See Anderson, 662 F.3d at 782 (“[T]he
3
only Indiana court to have squarely addressed this issue has concluded that the buyer only has to
4
give the seller a reasonable opportunity to cure if the terms of the warranty impose that
5
requirement.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff Beheler’s express warranty claim cannot be dismissed for
6
failure to allege notice and an opportunity to cure.
(d)
7
8
Michigan
Under Michigan law, it appears that “[t]he buyer must provide reasonable notice in order
to recover for a breach of warranty.” Eaton Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 581 F. Supp. 1514, 1531
10
(E.D. Mich. 1984). Plaintiffs do not cite any contrary authority. The CAC does not allege that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Michigan Plaintiff Berry provided any notice to Huawei. CAC ¶¶ 70–78. Accordingly, the Court
12
GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Berry’s express warranty claim with leave to
13
amend to allege further facts about Plaintiff Berry’s notice to Huawei.
(e)
14
Pennsylvania
15
The Court rejects Huawei’s notice argument as to Pennsylvania Plaintiff Leone. The
16
Pennsylvania statute says that “the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or
17
should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach.” 13 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann.
18
§ 2607(c)(1). However, while many states require pre-suit notice, Pennsylvania appears not to
19
have the same limitation. Pennsylvania state courts have held that the filing of a complaint may
20
satisfy the notice requirement for a breach of warranty claim. See Precision Towers, Inc. v. Nat-
21
Com, Inc., No. 2143, 2002 WL 31247992, at *5 (Pa. Com. Pl. Sept. 23, 2002) (“The filing of a
22
complaint has been held to satisfy the notice requirement for a breach of warranty claim.”); cf.
23
Yates v. Clifford Motors, Inc., 423 A.2d 1262, 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980) (holding that the filing
24
of the complaint constituted adequate notice that the plaintiff consumer was rejecting the truck at
25
issue). While the timeliness of the notice is a factual issue better resolved at a later stage of the
26
litigation, the filing of this action is sufficient to preclude dismissal of Plaintiff Leone’s express
27
warranty claim for failure to provide notice. See In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 46 F.
28
Supp. 3d 936, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
15
1
In sum, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
2
express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Tran and Berry—but not Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Beheler, or
3
Leone—for failure to adequately plead notice and an opportunity to cure.
(3)
4
5
Basis of the Bargain and Reliance
Huawei next contends that the Court should dismiss the express warranty claims of certain
6
Plaintiffs who do not plead that they saw or relied on Huawei’s warranty. Huawei Mot. 11.
7
Huawei’s argument covers Plaintiffs from California (Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, and
8
Christensen), Florida (Martorello), Illinois (Tran), New York (Davydov), North Carolina
9
(Harrison and Himes), Ohio (Servodio), Pennsylvania (Leone), Texas (Poore), and Washington
10
(Johnston). Id.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
In all of the relevant states, an express warranty is created only when an “affirmation of
12
fact or promise” or a “description of the goods” is part of the “basis of the bargain.” Cal. Com.
13
Code § 2313(1)(a)–(b); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.313(1)(a)–(b); 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-
14
313(1)(a)–(b); N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-313(1)(a)–(b); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 25-2-313(1)(a)–(b);
15
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.26(A)(1)–(2); 13 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2-313(a)(1)–(2);
16
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.313(a)(1)–(2); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 62A.2-313(1)(a)–(b).
17
The relevant question is whether Plaintiffs must show reliance on the statement or representation
18
for it to be considered part of the “basis of the bargain.” Because states are split on the question
19
whether reliance is necessary, the Court analyzes the relevant state laws in turn.
20
21
(a)
California
In adopting the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), California has shifted its view of
22
whether a plaintiff must allege reliance on specific promises to sustain express warranty claims.
23
Comment 3 to the analogous UCC provision, UCC § 2-313, provides:
24
25
26
27
28
The present section deals with affirmations of fact by the seller, descriptions of
the goods or exhibitions of samples, exactly as any other part of a negotiation
which ends in a contract is dealt with. No specific intention to make a warranty is
necessary if any of these factors is made part of the basis of the bargain. In actual
practice affirmations of fact made by the seller about the goods during a bargain
are regarded as part of the description of those goods; hence no particular
reliance on such statements need be shown in order to weave them into the fabric
of the agreement. Rather, any fact which is to take such affirmations, once made,
16
1
out of the agreement requires clear affirmative proof. The issue normally is one
of fact.
2
UCC § 2-313, cmt. 3 (emphasis added). While pre-UCC California law required proof of reliance
3
on specific promises, comment 3 to UCC § 2-313 expressly signals a departure from that
4
requirement. See Keith v. Buchanan, 220 Cal. Rptr. 392, 397–98 (Ct. App. 1985) (explaining that,
5
under the UCC, “the concept of reliance has been purposefully abandoned”). Because California’s
6
express warranty statute conforms to the UCC, the California Court of Appeal has held that a
7
buyer need not show reliance because the California statute “creates a presumption that the seller’s
8
affirmations go to the basis of the bargain.” Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614,
9
626 (Ct. App. 2010). The court reasoned that the statute focuses not on the buyer’s actions, but on
“the seller’s behavior and obligation—his or her affirmations, promises, and descriptions of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
goods—all of which help define what the seller ‘in essence’ agreed to sell.” Id. at 627. Therefore,
12
“[a]ny affirmation, once made, is part of the agreement unless there is ‘clear affirmative proof’
13
that the affirmation has been taken out of the agreement.” Id.
14
The Court acknowledges that some district court cases continue to indicate that reliance is
15
required after the decision in Weinstat. See, e.g., Nabors v. Google, Inc., No. 10-CV-03897 EJD,
16
2011 WL 3861893, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011) (dismissing express warranty claims where
17
plaintiff failed to allege reasonable reliance on any specific representations made by the
18
defendant). However, these cases are not dispositive because they are not decisions of the
19
California Supreme Court (or of any California state court) and they do not discuss Weinstat or
20
comment 3 to UCC § 2-313. Moreover, many of the cases are distinguishable because they did
21
not involve written warranties included as part of the sale, as here. In this situation, “an assertion
22
that the warranty [is] not part of the deal between the issuing party and receiving party is far less
23
persuasive.” In re MyFord, 46 F. Supp. 3d at 973.
24
In its reply, Huawei asserts that Weinstat is distinguishable because it involved parties that
25
were in privity with one another. Huawei Reply 8. In support of its argument, Huawei cites a
26
district court case drawing that distinction. See Coleman v. Boston Sci. Corp., No. 10-CV-01968-
27
OWW, 2011 WL 3813173, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (“Neither Weinstat nor Keith supports
28
Plaintiff’s erroneous contention that reliance is not required where privity is absent.”). Although
17
1
some district courts have reached that conclusion, multiple others have interpreted California law
2
not to require a showing of reliance even if privity is lacking. See, e.g., In re MyFord, 46 F. Supp.
3
3d at 973 (“[O]ther courts interpreting California law have not found such a limitation—i.e., they
4
have not required reliance where the parties are not in privity.”); McVicar v. Goodman Glob., Inc.,
5
1 F. Supp. 3d 1044, 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (relying on Weinstat in a suit by plaintiffs against an air
6
conditioning manufacturer and holding that the express warranty claim was well-pled even though
7
plaintiffs “did not allege that they saw any promises or affirmations of fact prior to purchase”); In
8
re Toyota Motor Corp., 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1183 n.22 (noting that plaintiffs, in a suit against a car
9
manufacturer, “are not required to allege reliance”).
10
At least on the facts of this case, the Court follows those cases that have not required
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
reliance as a prerequisite to asserting an express warranty claim. As Weinstat emphasizes, the
12
statute focuses on the seller and looks to the promises and affirmations that the seller made. 103
13
Cal. Rptr. 3d at 627. The ultimate question is “what the seller ‘in essence’ agreed to sell.” See id.
14
Here, in selling the phones to retailers to sell to the public, Huawei provided a written Limited
15
Warranty that the Nexus 6P phones are “free from material defects” in normal operation. Huawei
16
Mot., Ex. A, Preamble. Although two out of three California Plaintiffs did not purchase directly
17
from Huawei, there is no dispute that Huawei treated the Limited Warranty as extending to
18
Plaintiffs upon their purchase. See CAC ¶ 15 (alleging that “Huawei informed [California
19
Plaintiff] Makcharoenwoodhi that his warranty was voided,” not that it did not apply to him); see
20
also, e.g., id. ¶¶ 44 (alleging that Huawei denied warranty coverage even though Florida Plaintiff
21
Martorello claimed within the warranty period), 242 (alleging that Huawei’s Limited Warranty is
22
designed to cover end-users, not retailers). In these circumstances, a privity requirement would
23
have little meaning and would serve only to allow Huawei to evade the promises it made in
24
writing about the Nexus 6P phones. Accordingly, failure to adequately plead reliance is not an
25
appropriate basis on which to dismiss the express warranty claims of Plaintiffs
26
Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, and Christensen.
27
28
(b)
Florida
Under Florida law, “an express warranty is generally considered to arise only where the
18
1
seller asserts a fact of which the buyer is ignorant prior to the beginning of the transaction and on
2
which the buyer justifiably relies as part of the ‘basis of the bargain.’” Thursby v. Reynolds
3
Metals Co., 466 So. 2d 245, 250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (citations omitted); see also Royal
4
Typewriter Co. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., 719 F.2d 1092, 1101 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding
5
that, under Florida law, “absence of reliance will negate the existence of an express warranty”).
6
Plaintiffs do not cite any contrary authority. Because the sole Florida Plaintiff, Martorello, does
7
not allege facts to support the necessary element of reliance, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s motion
8
to dismiss this claim with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
(c)
9
10
Illinois
Whether a plaintiff must plead reliance under Illinois law is slightly unclear. Some Illinois
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
courts have suggested that reliance is an invariable requirement for an express warranty claim.
12
See, e.g., Regopoulos v. Waukegan P’ship, 608 N.E.2d 457, 461 (Ill. Ct. App. 1992) (stating that
13
one necessary element of an express warranty claim is that “the purchaser actually relied upon the
14
warranty”); Coryell v. Lombard Lincoln-Mercury Merkur, Inc., 544 N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (Ill. Ct.
15
App. 1989) (“[T]he buyer must show reliance on the seller’s representations in order for an
16
express warranty to exist.”). Other Illinois courts have held that a seller’s representations create a
17
rebuttable presumption of reliance by the buyer so that reliance need not be pled. See, e.g., Felley
18
v. Singleton, 705 N.E.2d 930, 934 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999) (“[R]epresentations [by the seller] constitute
19
express warranties, regardless of the buyer’s reliance on them, unless the seller shows by clear
20
affirmative proof that the representations did not become part of the basis of the bargain.”); Weng
21
v. Allison, 678 N.E.2d 1254, 1256 (Ill. Ct. App. 1997) (“In this matter, the seller’s statements to
22
the buyers . . . were affirmations of fact and descriptions of the [product] that created an express
23
warranty.”). These courts have acknowledged the tension in the cases. See Felley, 705 N.E.2d at
24
934 (citing the above-quoted statement in Coryell and “recogniz[ing] that Illinois courts have not
25
always consistently stated these principles”).
26
Despite the inconsistency, the legal principles do not seem to be irreconcilable. In
27
particular, the cases can be harmonized based on the presence or absence of privity. When privity
28
is lacking, the background rule mandates pleading and proving reliance. See Regopoulos, 608
19
1
N.E.2d at 461. In contrast, when the plaintiff is in privity with the defendant, the defendant’s
2
representations about the product presumptively establish the reliance element. See Felley, 705
3
N.E.2d at 934; Weng, 678 N.E.2d at 1256. Indeed, one of the cases that Plaintiffs cite explicitly
4
notes the connection between allegations of privity and allegations of reliance. See In re Rust-
5
Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772, 809 (N.D. Ill.
6
2016). And Plaintiffs’ other case involved the quintessential privity relationship—that between
7
buyer and seller. See Bietsch v. Sergeant’s Pet Care Prod., Inc., No. 15-CV-05432, 2016 WL
8
1011512, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2016). Under Illinois law, then, it appears that a plaintiff must
9
plead reliance if he does not adequately allege privity with the defendant.
10
As discussed in more detail in the privity section below, Illinois Plaintiff Tran does not
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
sufficiently plead that he is in privity with Huawei or that an exception applies. Without an
12
adequate allegation of privity, Plaintiff Tran’s claim must be dismissed for failure to plead
13
reliance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Tran’s express
14
warranty claim with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
15
16
(d)
New York
Under New York law, the buyer may bring an action for breach of express warranty
17
against a manufacturer only if “the buyer relied [on the manufacturer’s statements] when
18
contracting with his immediate seller.” Avola v. La.-Pac. Corp., 991 F. Supp. 2d 381, 391
19
(E.D.N.Y. 2013); see also Horowitz v. Stryker Corp., 613 F. Supp. 2d 271, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)
20
(holding that, under New York law, “an action for breach of express warranty requires . . . reliance
21
on th[e] promise or representation” (citing CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Pub. Co., 553 N.E.2d 997, 1000–
22
01 (N.Y. 1990))). Plaintiffs do not identify any contrary authority. Because the sole New York
23
Plaintiff, Davydov, does not allege facts to support the necessary element of reliance, the Court
24
GRANTS Huawei’s motion to dismiss this claim with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
25
(e)
26
North Carolina
The same result obtains under North Carolina law. As Plaintiffs’ own authority provides,
27
“[a] plaintiff must have relied upon the warrantor’s statement in order to establish an express
28
warranty and its breach.” Eclipse Packaging, Inc. v. Stewarts of Am., Inc., No. 14-CV-0019520
1
RLV, 2016 WL 3619120, at *4 (W.D.N.C. July 6, 2016) (citing Pake v. Byrd, 286 S.E.2d 588, 590
2
(N.C. Ct. App. 1982)); see also Harbor Point Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc. ex rel. Bd. of Dirs. v. DJF
3
Enters., Inc., 697 S.E.2d 439, 447 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (noting that a claim for breach of express
4
warranty requires that the affirmation “was relied upon by the plaintiff in making his decision to
5
purchase” (citation omitted)). However, “the element of reliance can often be inferred from
6
allegations of mere purchase or use if the natural tendency of the representations made is such as
7
to induce such purchase or use.” Bernick v. Jurden, 293 S.E.2d 405, 413 (N.C. 1982) (citing
8
Kinlaw v. Long Mfg. N. C., Inc., 259 S.E.2d 552, 557 n.7 (N.C. 1979)).
North Carolina Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes do not argue or allege that the natural
10
tendency of Huawei’s representation that the Nexus 6P phones are “free from material defects” in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
normal operation was to induce them to purchase the phone. This representation stands in stark
12
contrast to the representation at issue in Bernick. There, the North Carolina Supreme Court held
13
that the defendants’ statement that their hockey mouthguard offered “maximum protection to the
14
lips and teeth” would naturally tend to induce a mother to purchase one for her son. Bernick, 293
15
S.E.2d at 413–14. The court emphasized the “family purpose of the mother’s purchase.” Id. at
16
414. No similar circumstances or facts are alleged in this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
17
Huawei’s motion to dismiss the express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes with
18
leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
19
20
(f)
Ohio
In the case of express written warranties, Ohio law follows the same approach as
21
California law—namely, that express warranty claims may proceed even in the absence of an
22
allegation of reliance. In Norcold, Inc. v. Gateway Supply Co., the Ohio Court of Appeals rested
23
on comment 3 of UCC § 2-313 and followed the “decisive majority of courts” that have held that
24
“reliance is not an element in a claim for breach of an express written warranty.” 798 N.E.2d 618,
25
623–24 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). As the court explained, a written warranty is an integral part of a
26
transaction whose purpose is to assure “one party to a contract of the existence of a fact upon
27
which the other party may rely.” Id. at 624 (quoting Metro. Coal Co. v. Howard, 155 F.2d 780,
28
784 (2d Cir. 1946)). Thus, in that case, the court held that “because the warranties . . . were part of
21
1
a written contract, . . . enforcement thereof is not dependant [sic] upon any reliance by [the
2
plaintiff].” Id. Although this case does not involve a warranty explicitly written into a contract
3
between the parties, Norcold’s reasoning applies in this situation, where the manufacturer has
4
warranted specific terms in writing.
5
Huawei’s cited authority, McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ohio
6
2010), is distinguishable. Although the district court in McKinney was also interpreting Ohio law,
7
the court relied heavily on a Sixth Circuit opinion interpreting Kentucky law and acknowledged as
8
much. Id. at 754 (citing Sixth Circuit’s decision in Overstreet v. Norden Labs., Inc., 669 F.2d
9
1286 (6th Cir. 1982), and noting that the Sixth Circuit was “applying analogous Kentucky law”).
Notably, the district court in McKinney did not address Norcold at all, likely because the Ohio
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Court of Appeals in Norcold limited its holding to “the context of an express written warranty,”
12
798 N.E.2d at 623, whereas the warranties at issue in McKinney were contained in advertising and
13
labeling, 744 F. Supp. 2d at 754–55. Because the instant case involves an express written
14
warranty, the Court concludes that Norcold is controlling and Ohio Plaintiff Servodio’s need not
15
plead reliance to state a claim for express warranty under Ohio law. Accordingly, this is not an
16
appropriate basis on which to dismiss Plaintiff Servodio’s express warranty claim.
17
18
(g)
Pennsylvania
Under Pennsylvania law, there is a rebuttable presumption of reliance. See Cole v. Gen.
19
Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 726 (5th Cir. 2007). Specifically, Pennsylvania law follows the
20
approach that “all statements of the seller [become] part of the basis of the bargain unless clear
21
affirmative proof is shown to the contrary.” Sessa v. Riegle, 427 F. Supp. 760, 766 (E.D. Pa.
22
1977), aff’d, 568 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1978). Accordingly, reliance is not an appropriate basis on
23
which to dismiss Pennsylvania Plaintiff Leone’s express warranty claim.
24
(h)
Texas
25
Texas courts have interpreted Texas’s express warranty law to incorporate a reliance
26
requirement. In Compaq Computer Corp. v. Lapray, the Texas Supreme Court surveyed the states
27
that have and have not adopted the reliance requirement and noted that “[u]nder Texas law, we
28
have said that ‘[r]eliance is . . . not only relevant to, but an element of proof of, plaintiffs’ claims
22
1
of breach of express warranty (to a certain extent).’” 135 S.W.3d 657, 676 (Tex. 2004) (second
2
and third alterations in original) (quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675, 686
3
(Tex. 2002)); Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 436 (Tex. 1997) (“[A]n express
4
warranty claim also requires a form of reliance.”). Although Plaintiffs identify a Texas Court of
5
Appeals case stating in a footnote that it is error to include reliance as a necessary element of proof
6
for breach of express warranty, Villalon v. Vollmering, 676 S.W.2d 220, 222 n.1 (Tex. App. 1984),
7
other divisions of the Texas Court of Appeals have reached a different conclusion. In any event,
8
the statement in Villalon cannot override the strong indications by the Texas Supreme Court about
9
reliance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s motion to dismiss the express warranty
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
claim of Texas Plaintiff Poore with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
(i)
Washington
Washington courts sometimes require a form of reliance. For example, in Touchet Valley
13
Grain Growers, Inc. v. Opp & Seibold General Construction, Inc., the Washington Supreme Court
14
explained that “[r]ecovery for breach of an express warranty is contingent on a plaintiff’s
15
knowledge of the representation.” 831 P.2d 724, 731 (Wash. 1992); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.,
16
727 P.2d 655, 669 (Wash. 1986) (“Although the UCC does not require a plaintiff to show reliance
17
on the manufacturer’s statements, he or she must at least be aware of such representations to
18
recover for their breach.”). However, the Court does not read those cases to require a showing of
19
awareness when the plaintiffs base their claims on an express written warranty, rather than other
20
representations (such as advertising statements), to form the basis of the bargain. See In re Myford
21
Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-CV-03072-EMC, 2015 WL 5118308, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31,
22
2015) (recognizing that awareness of representations must be shown under Washington law
23
“where the representations are used by the plaintiff to define the scope of the warranty”).
24
Huawei’s authority is to the same effect, as Huawei’s identified case involved advertising
25
statements and cited a Washington Supreme Court case for the proposition that “before recovering
26
on a claim of breach of an express warranty contained in an advertisement, a plaintiff must
27
demonstrate that he or she justifiably relied on a statement contained in the advertisement.” Reece
28
v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 953 P.2d 117, 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Arrow Transp. Co. v.
23
1
A. O. Smith Co., 454 P.2d 387, 390 (Wash. 1969)). Accordingly, reliance is not an appropriate
2
basis on which to dismiss Washington Plaintiff Johnston’s express warranty claim.
3
In sum, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
4
express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Martorello, Tran, Davydov, Harrison, Himes, and Poore—but
5
not Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, Christensen, Servodio, Leone, or Johnston—for
6
failure to adequately plead reliance.
(4)
7
8
Privity
Finally, Huawei contends that the Court should dismiss the express warranty claims of
Florida Plaintiff Martorello and Illinois Plaintiff Tran because those Plaintiffs are not in privity of
10
contract with Huawei. Huawei Mot. 12. Huawei properly asserts that the CAC’s bare allegation
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
that all Plaintiffs “were in privity of contract with Huawei . . . by virtue of their interactions with
12
Huawei,” CAC ¶ 242, is conclusory and does not plausibly allege privity. Thus, the Court must
13
address whether privity of contract is required to state a claim for breach of express warranty
14
under Florida and Illinois law.
15
16
(a)
Florida
Florida courts are split on whether claims for breach of express warranty always require
17
privity. See In re Clorox Consumer Litig., No. 12-CV-00280-SC, 2013 WL 3967334, at *10
18
(N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) (summarizing the split). Some courts hold that because express
19
warranty claims are contractual, “the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant.”
20
Hill v. Hoover Co., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1266 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting T.W.M. v. Am. Med.
21
Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995)). Other courts have declined to apply the privity
22
requirement when the seller is unlikely to have knowledge about the manufacturer’s product.
23
Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 663 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (“[I]t defies common
24
sense to argue that purchasers of Eclipse gum presumed that the cashier at the local convenience
25
store is familiar with the scientific properties of MBE.”). Even if the Court finds the latter line of
26
cases persuasive, Florida Plaintiff Martorello purchased his phone from Google. CAC ¶ 38. The
27
CAC provides no basis to conclude that Huawei has detailed knowledge about the Nexus 6P that
28
Google does not; to the contrary, the CAC often lumps Huawei and Google together.
24
1
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of
2
Plaintiff Martorello with leave to amend to allege further facts about the privity relationship
3
between Plaintiff Martorello and Huawei or any disparity in knowledge between Huawei and
4
Google regarding the Nexus 6P phone.
(b)
5
6
Illinois
As noted above, Illinois’s law on privity is congruous with its law on reliance. Illinois
7
generally requires the plaintiff to be in privity with the defendant. Baldonado v. Wyeth, No. 04-
8
CV-04312, 2012 WL 729228, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2012). Illinois Plaintiff Tran has not
9
sufficiently alleged privity with Huawei. He purchased his Nexus 6P phone through the Google
Store, and he interacted solely with Google when trying to remedy the Bootloop Defect. CAC
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
¶¶ 52–54. The CAC’s unsupported allegation that all Plaintiffs “were in privity of contract with
12
Huawei . . . by virtue of their interactions with Huawei,” id. ¶ 242, is conclusory and does not
13
plausibly allege privity.
14
That conclusion does not end the analysis. Where the parties are not in privity, there may
15
be an express warranty if the plaintiff shows that the statement became part of the basis of the
16
bargain. Ampat/Midwest, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., No. 85-CV-10029, 1988 WL 53222, at *3
17
(N.D. Ill. May 12, 1988). More precisely, Illinois courts have recognized an exception to the
18
privity requirement, holding that “manufacturer documents given directly to the buyer prior to a
19
purchase may give rise to an express warranty.” Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. v. Williams-Hayward
20
Protective Coatings, Inc., No. 02-CV-08800, 2005 WL 782698, at *15 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2005);
21
see also Wheeler v. Sunbelt Tool Co., 537 N.E.2d 1332, 1341 (Ill. Ct. App. 1989) (“Documents,
22
brochures, and advertisements [from the manufacturer] may constitute express warranties.”).
23
Although the CAC provides a website to access Huawei’s Limited Warranty, CAC ¶ 219 & n.17,
24
there are no allegations that the warranty was available online at the time that Plaintiff Tran
25
purchased his Nexus 6P or that he was directed to the online warranty, accessed the warranty
26
online, or otherwise received the warranty before his purchase, id. ¶¶ 52–57. While Plaintiffs’
27
opposition suggests that Huawei’s Limited Warranty was “included in every Google Nexus 6P
28
box,” Opp’n 17, there is no corresponding allegation in the CAC. These circumstances do not fit
25
1
within the privity exception, and Plaintiffs do not even clearly argue that the exception is met in
2
this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty
3
claim of Plaintiff Tran with leave to amend to allege further facts about the privity relationship
4
between Plaintiff Tran and Huawei.
5
6
7
8
9
In sum, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
express warranty claim of Plaintiffs Martorello and Tran for failure to adequately plead privity.
ii.
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Plaintiffs bring their second cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability on behalf of a putative nationwide class but do not specify which law governs the
claim. CAC ¶ 235. Alternatively, they assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
merchantability on behalf of the putative statewide subclasses under the laws of the respective
12
states. Id. ¶ 236. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ cause of action alleges that Huawei “impliedly
13
warranted that the Phones were of a merchantable quality” but failed to keep that promise because
14
the Nexus 6Ps “were not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for
15
which phones are used.” Id. ¶ 239. Huawei seeks dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiffs have not
16
adequately pled that they were in privity with Huawei, that they provided Huawei notice and an
17
opportunity to cure, and that the phones were unmerchantable. Huawei Mot. 13–16.
(1)
18
19
Privity and Third-Party Beneficiary
Huawei first contends that certain Plaintiffs who did not purchase from Huawei cannot
20
assert implied warranty claims. Huawei Mot. 14. Huawei argues that vertical privity is a
21
necessary element to sustain an implied warranty claim and that these Plaintiffs do not adequately
22
plead privity. Id. With one limited exception, Plaintiffs concede that the relevant states require
23
vertical privity, but they respond that the third-party beneficiary exception applies here and is
24
adequately pled. Opp’n 31–34.
25
Preliminarily, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead privity between the relevant
26
Plaintiffs and Huawei. Specifically, Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, Martorello, Tran,
27
Berry, Davydov, Harrison, Himes, Servodio, and Johnston did not purchase their phones from
28
Huawei. CAC ¶¶ 12 (Makcharoenwoodhi: Best Buy), 19 (Gorbatchev: Google), 38 (Martorello:
26
1
Google), 52 (Tran: Google), 70 (Berry: Google), 79 (Davydov: Amazon), 91 (Harrison: Amazon),
2
99 (Himes: Best Buy), 119 (Servodio: Newegg), 153 (Johnston: Best Buy). Moreover, without
3
any supporting factual content, the conclusory statement that all Plaintiffs “were in privity of
4
contract with Huawei . . . by virtue of their interactions with Huawei,” id. ¶ 242, does not
5
plausibly allege privity. Thus, the Court must address the existence of the vertical privity
6
requirement and the third-party beneficiary exception.
7
First, Plaintiffs correctly note that “Michigan has abandoned the privity requirement for
8
implied-warranty claims.” Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 820 (6th Cir. 2006); see also
9
Heritage Res., Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 774 N.W.2d 332, 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)
(“[The Michigan] Supreme Court . . . has previously held that for some remote purchasers it is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
unnecessary in actions for breach of implied warranty to establish privity of contract with the
12
manufacturer.”). Huawei does not counter that precedent. Accordingly, the claim by Michigan
13
Plaintiff Berry is not properly dismissed on this ground.
14
Huawei cites cases recognizing a vertical privity requirement under California, Illinois,
15
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington law. See Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
16
534 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008) (California); Zaro v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., No. 07-CV-
17
03565-JWD, 2007 WL 4335431, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2007) (Illinois); Kolle v. Mainship Corp.,
18
No. 04-CV-00711-TCP, 2006 WL 1085067, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2006) (New York); Traxler
19
v. PPG Indus., Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 607, 623 (N.D. Ohio 2016) (North Carolina); McKinney, 744
20
F. Supp. 2d at 758 (Ohio); Chance v. Richards Mfg. Co., 499 F. Supp. 102, 105 (E.D. Wash. 1980)
21
(Washington). Plaintiffs do not challenge that proposition because they argue that application of
22
the third-party beneficiary exception obviates any need to satisfy the vertical privity requirement.
23
In its moving papers, Huawei concedes that the relevant states allow plaintiffs to bring
24
implied warranty claims in the absence of privity if the plaintiff shows that he was a beneficiary to
25
a contract between the defendant and a third party. Huawei Mot. 14 (citing In re NVIDIA GPU
26
Litig., No. 08-CV-04312-JW, 2009 WL 4020104, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009)). Because the
27
parties do not identify any material differences among the relevant state laws, the Court uses
28
California law as the rubric for analyzing these arguments. California has codified the third-party
27
1
beneficiary exception: “A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be
2
enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1559.
3
“Because third party beneficiary status is a matter of contract interpretation, a person seeking to
4
enforce a contract as a third party beneficiary must plead a contract which was made expressly for
5
his [or her] benefit and one in which it clearly appears that he [or she] was a beneficiary.”
6
Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc., 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233, 239 (Ct. App. 2005) (alterations in
7
original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
8
9
With respect to Huawei, Plaintiffs fulfill these pleading requirements. Specifically,
Plaintiffs point to Huawei’s Limited Warranty as the contract which is made expressly for
Plaintiffs’ benefit. CAC ¶ 242. That express warranty represents to the original purchaser that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Nexus 6P is free from material defects and that Huawei would repair or replace defective or
12
malfunctioning parts. Id. ¶¶ 218–20. As Plaintiffs allege, the Limited Warranty is designed to
13
benefit only the end users, not the retailers who sell the phones. Id. ¶ 242; see also id. ¶ 294 (“The
14
retailers were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Nexus 6P smartphones and have no
15
rights under the warranty agreements connected with the Nexus 6P smartphones; these agreements
16
were designed for and intended to benefit the end-users only.”). Similar allegations have been
17
held to be sufficient to invoke the third-party beneficiary exception. See, e.g., In re MyFord, 46 F.
18
Supp. 3d at 982–84 & n.15 (finding third-party beneficiary allegations sufficient where Plaintiffs
19
alleged that the retailers “ha[d] no rights under the warranty agreements” and “the warranty
20
agreements were designed for and intended to benefit the ultimate consumers only”); In re Toyota
21
Motor Corp., 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1185 (finding third-party beneficiary allegations sufficient where
22
Plaintiffs alleged that they “were the intended consumers” who bought from “a network of dealers
23
who are agents of Defendants”).
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, lack of privity is not an appropriate basis on which to dismiss Plaintiffs’
claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
(2)
Notice and Opportunity to Cure
In a similar vein to its argument for dismissal of the express warranty claims, Huawei
contends that certain Plaintiffs’ failure to give Huawei notice or an opportunity to cure is fatal to
28
1
these Plaintiffs’ implied warranty claims. Huawei Mot. 15–16. In particular, Plaintiffs Beheler,
2
Berry, Harrison, Himes, Leone, and Poore do not allege that they provided Huawei notice of their
3
breach of implied warranty claims. Id. at 16. Due to the variations in state law on this issue, the
4
Court proceeds through each Plaintiff’s state-law claim individually.
5
6
(a)
Indiana
The cases cited with respect to Indiana’s notice requirement for express warranty claims
7
apply equally to implied warranty of merchantability claims. See Anderson, 662 F.3d at 780
8
(express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability claims); see also Agrarian Grain Co.,
9
526 N.E.2d at 1193 (implied warranty of merchantability claims). Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, Indiana Plaintiff Beheler’s implied warranty claim cannot be dismissed
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
for failure to allege notice and an opportunity to cure.
12
13
(b)
Michigan
Under Michigan law, a “plaintiff’s failure to give defendants reasonable notice of her
14
breach-of-warranty claims” justifies dismissal. Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 839 N.W.2d
15
223, 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013); see also In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1104 (N.D.
16
Cal. 2015). More specifically, “the seller must be given actual notice that the buyer believes that
17
the seller is in breach.” Gorman, 839 N.W.2d at 231. Here, the CAC’s allegations that Michigan
18
Plaintiff Berry contacted Google and engaged in various (unsuccessful) troubleshooting options
19
are not sufficient to meet that standard. CAC ¶¶ 72–75. Not only did Plaintiff Berry have no
20
interactions with Huawei, but he did not put Huawei on notice that he believed Huawei to be in
21
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s
22
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Berry’s claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
23
with leave to amend to allege further facts about whether he put Huawei on notice that he believed
24
Huawei to be in breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
25
26
(c)
North Carolina
In North Carolina, “the burden of pleading . . . that seasonable notification has been given
27
is on the buyer.” Maybank v. S. S. Kresge Co., 273 S.E.2d 681, 683 (N.C. 1981); see Phillips v.
28
Rest. Mgmt. of Carolina, L.P., 552 S.E.2d 686, 692 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (listing “timely notice to
29
the seller” as an essential element to establish a claim for breach of the implied warranty of
2
merchantability (quoting Ismael v. Goodman Toyota, 417 S.E.2d 290, 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992))).
3
“Whether the notice given was seasonable is a question of fact and normally must be determined
4
by the trier of fact.” Maybank, 273 S.E.2d at 684 n.1. Moreover, in deciding an appeal from a
5
motion for directed verdict, the North Carolina Supreme Court has held that there may be
6
compliance with the notice requirement where “the plaintiff is a lay consumer and notification is
7
given to the defendant by the filing of an action within the period of the statute of limitations.” Id.
8
at 685 (“When the plaintiff is a lay consumer and notification is given to the defendant by the
9
filing of an action within the period of the statute of limitations, and when the applicable policies
10
behind the notice requirement have been fulfilled, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to go to the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
jury on the issue of seasonable notice.”).
12
Based on those standards, both North Carolina Plaintiffs have adequately pled notice.
13
Most importantly, Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes are lay consumers who filed this action against
14
Huawei and are not alleged to be untimely. Additionally, both Plaintiffs contacted Huawei about
15
the problems they were experiencing with their Nexus 6P phones and followed up with Huawei
16
when their concerns were not resolved. CAC ¶¶ 94 (Harrison), 103–04 (Himes). Other North
17
Carolina cases have held that repeatedly returning a product can be sufficient to put the defendant
18
on notice. See, e.g., Ismael, 417 S.E.2d at 295 (noting that the plaintiff “repeatedly returned the
19
car to defendant for repair”); Wright v. T & B Auto Sales, Inc., 325 S.E.2d 493, 495–96 (N.C. Ct.
20
App. 1985) (“Plaintiff gave Defendant timely notice of the defects by repeatedly returning the car
21
to Defendant from March 1982 through September 1982 complaining that the car was overheating
22
and that water was in the oil.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes’s implied warranty
23
claims cannot be dismissed for failure to allege notice and an opportunity to cure.
24
25
(d)
Pennsylvania
The parties present no reason to conclude that, with regard to notice, express and implied
26
warranty claims should be treated differently under Pennsylvania law. As noted above, there is
27
authority holding that the filing of a complaint can be sufficient to notify the manufacturer of
28
breach. See Precision Towers, 2002 WL 31247992, at *5 (“The filing of a complaint has been
30
1
held to satisfy the notice requirement for a breach of warranty claim.”). Although the timeliness
2
of the notice remains an open issue, the filing of this action is sufficient to preclude dismissal of
3
Plaintiff Leone’s implied warranty claim for failure to provide notice. See In re MyFord, 46 F.
4
Supp. 3d at 978.
(e)
5
6
Texas
Although some Texas courts have held that notice to a manufacturer is not required,
Vintage Homes, Inc. v. Coldiron, 585 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979), the weight of
8
authority in Texas favors the position that notice is required in this circumstance, see McKay v.
9
Novartis Pharm. Corp., 934 F. Supp. 2d 898, 912 (W.D. Tex. 2013) (“Three out of the four Texas
10
courts of appeals which have addressed the issue have held that a buyer is required to give notice
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
of an alleged breach of warranty to a remote as well as an immediate seller/manufacturer.”), aff’d,
12
751 F.3d 694 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, under Texas law, “[t]he manufacturer must be made
13
aware of a problem with a particular product purchased by a particular buyer” and commencement
14
of a lawsuit does not satisfy that requirement. U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc. v. Boeran, B.V., 110 S.W.3d
15
194, 202 (Tex. App. 2003).
16
Although the CAC states that Texas Plaintiff Poore “contacted Huawei to request that his
17
Phone be repaired or replaced,” CAC ¶ 147, it gives no indication that Poore communicated the
18
particular issues that he was having with his phone to Huawei. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion,
19
Opp’n 26, Plaintiff Poore cannot rely on Huawei’s generalized knowledge of concerns about the
20
phones. See U.S. Tire-Tech, 110 S.W.3d at 202; see also In re Carrier IQ, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1104.
21
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Poore’s claim for breach
22
of the implied warranty of merchantability with leave to amend to allege further facts about
23
whether he made Huawei aware of the problems with his Nexus 6P.
24
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the implied warranty
25
claims of Plaintiffs Berry and Poore—but not Plaintiffs Beheler, Harrison, Himes, or Leone—with
26
leave to amend to allege further facts about whether any of these Plaintiffs provided notice and an
27
opportunity to cure.
28
31
(3)
1
2
Merchantability
In a particularly weak final argument, Huawei contends that Plaintiffs do not plausibly
3
allege that their Nexus 6P phones were not merchantable. Huawei Mot. 16. Huawei’s argument is
4
unpersuasive.
5
The implied warranty of merchantability arises by operation of law rather than contract.
6
See, e.g., Hauter v. Zogarts, 534 P.2d 377, 385 (Cal. 1975). It guarantees not that the goods
7
“precisely fulfill the expectation of the buyer,” but instead that the goods meet “a minimum level
8
of quality.” Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 1995)
9
(citation omitted). “The core test of merchantability is fitness for the ordinary purpose for which
such goods are used.” Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 285, 289 (Ct. App. 2009)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(citation omitted).
12
Plaintiffs’ allegations easily satisfy these requirements. The CAC identifies some of the
13
basic functions of a smartphone, including “mak[ing] calls, send[ing] text messages, access[ing]
14
the internet,” and storing “photographs, videos, text messages, and contact lists.” CAC ¶ 175.
15
Further, the Bootloop and Battery Drain Defects render the phones unfit for those purposes. When
16
the Bootloop Defect manifests, the phone experiences total failure and the customer permanently
17
loses access to any data stored on the phone. Id. ¶¶ 174–75; see also id. ¶ 175 (describing a Nexus
18
6P with the Bootloop Defect as “essentially an expensive paperweight”). When the Battery Drain
19
Defect manifests, the phone experiences severe battery drainage with early shut-off. Id. ¶¶ 176–
20
77. The customer may use the phone again only after connecting the phone to power. Id. ¶ 178.
21
It is no response that some Plaintiffs continued to use their phones after the defects manifested, see
22
Huawei Mot. 16, as “the implied warranty can be breached when, although capable of performing
23
its ordinary function, the product nonetheless fails in a significant way to perform as a reasonable
24
consumer would expect.” In re Carrier IQ, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1109.
25
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have adequately pled that the Nexus 6Ps were unmerchantable, and
26
this is not an appropriate basis on which to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the implied
27
warranty of merchantability.
28
32
iii.
1
Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
The California Plaintiffs’ cause of action for violations of the Song–Beverly Consumer
2
Warranty Act (“Song–Beverly Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1, 1792, on behalf of the California
4
subclass fails because Plaintiffs do not allege where they purchased their phones. The protections
5
of the Song–Beverly Act extend only to “sale[s] of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this
6
state [California].” Cal. Civ. Code § 1792. The California Plaintiffs do not allege where they
7
purchased their phones, and they seek to represent a class of persons in the state of California who
8
purchased or own at least one Nexus 6P. CAC ¶¶ 205, 285. It is not plausible to infer that any
9
person in California who owns a Nexus 6P purchased the phone in California. See In re Carrier
10
IQ, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1107 (“[W]hile Plaintiffs allege a number of Plaintiffs reside in California
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
there are actually no allegations in the [complaint] that any of these Plaintiffs purchased their
12
mobile devices in California.”). Plaintiffs must allege whether the phone purchases took place in
13
California.5
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the Song–Beverly Act
14
15
claim with leave to amend to assert where the phone purchases took place.
iv.
16
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleges violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, 15
17
18
U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., presumably on behalf of the nationwide class, though the CAC does not
19
specify. CAC ¶¶ 249–67. The parties agree that, in this case, “the claims under the Magnuson–
20
Moss Act stand or fall with [the] express and implied warranty claims under state law.” Clemens,
21
534 F.3d at 1022. The Court has concluded that all of the implied warranty claims survive except
22
those brought by Plaintiffs Berry and Poore under Michigan and Texas law, respectively. The
23
Court has also concluded that the express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Berry and Poore should be
24
dismissed with leave to amend. As it stands, then, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to
25
26
27
28
5
Huawei makes an argument in its Motion to Dismiss that the Song–Beverly Act requires that the
plaintiff deliver a defective product to the manufacturer for repair within the express warranty
coverage period. Huawei Mot. 17–18. Plaintiffs respond that the provision Huawei cites is
applicable only to assistive devices for disabled persons. Opp’n 36. Huawei does not repeat the
argument in its reply. Huawei Reply 13.
33
1
Dismiss the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claims of Plaintiffs Berry and Poore with leave to
2
amend, but otherwise DENIES Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson–Moss Warranty
3
Act claims.6
b.
4
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Claims
Plaintiffs assert various fraud claims against Huawei. Specifically, they bring common-
5
law claims for deceit and fraudulent concealment, CAC ¶¶ 268–77, as well as claims under a
7
number of state consumer fraud statutes, id. ¶¶ 297–535. There are two common theories
8
underlying fraud claims: affirmative misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions. The CAC does
9
not allege that Huawei made any affirmative representations about Nexus 6P phones, other than to
10
treat Huawei and Google as a collective. See, e.g., id. ¶ 275 (“Plaintiffs and Class members relied
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
to their detriment upon Defendants’ . . . fraudulent misrepresentations . . . regarding the quality of
12
Phones and the Defects in deciding to purchase their Phones.”). Rather, Plaintiffs rely on
13
Huawei’s failure to notify consumers of the alleged Bootloop and Battery Drain Defects. Id.
14
¶¶ 270, 303, 319, 335, 343, 356, 374, 394, 403, 418, 428, 437, 448, 466, 482, 491, 508, 522.
15
Huawei challenges the viability of this fraudulent omissions theory on multiple grounds and then
16
makes additional arguments with regard to some of the statutory claims.
i.
17
No Duty to Disclose
Huawei first contends that it had no duty to disclose the defects because Plaintiffs have
18
19
not plausibly alleged that Huawei had knowledge of the defects prior to the time of sale. Huawei
20
Mot. 19. The Court looks to California law to guide the analysis because Plaintiffs rely solely on
21
California law in responding to Huawei’s arguments and do not identify any material differences
22
with other state laws. Opp’n 41–48, 50. California law supports this common-sense notion that a
23
defendant cannot “disclose facts of which it was unaware.” In re Sony Grand Wega, 758 F. Supp.
24
2d at 1095. The Ninth Circuit has put it explicitly: to state a claim for fraud based on failure to
25
disclose under California law, the plaintiff must allege that “the manufacturer knew of the defect
26
27
28
6
Huawei also claims a separate notice issue with respect to Plaintiffs’ Magnuson–Moss Warranty
Act claims but fails to fully develop the point or explain how the argument differs from the notice
arguments under state law. Huawei Mot. 18.
34
1
at the time a sale was made.” Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th Cir.
2
2017); see also LiMandri v. Judkins, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 539, 543 (Ct. App. 1997) (noting that
3
nondisclosure is actionable in fraud when the defendant “had exclusive knowledge of material
4
facts not known to the plaintiff,” “actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff,” or “makes
5
partial representations but also suppresses some material facts”).
6
As explained in detail above, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Huawei had
7
knowledge of either the Bootloop Defect or the Battery Drain Defect when the Plaintiffs
8
purchased their Nexus 6Ps. Therefore, Huawei had no duty to disclose the defects. Accordingly,
9
the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ fraud claims to the extent they are
based on a fraudulent omissions theory with leave to amend to allege facts about Huawei’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
knowledge of the defects at the time of sale.
ii.
12
13
No Unreasonable Safety Hazard
Huawei next contends that Plaintiffs’ statutory fraud claims under California, Florida,
14
North Carolina, Texas, and Washington law must be dismissed because the CAC does not
15
plausibly allege that the phone defects posed an unreasonable safety hazard. Huawei Mot. 21.
16
Although Plaintiffs argue that an unreasonable safety hazard is not a necessary element for the
17
statutory fraud claims, the Ninth Circuit recently held that, in the absence of affirmative
18
misrepresentations, “[t]o state a claim for failing to disclose a defect, a party must allege,” among
19
other things, “the existence of an unreasonable safety hazard.” Williams, 851 F.3d at 1025; see
20
also id. at 1026 (citing Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1142–43, as “holding that where a defendant has not
21
made an affirmative misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege the existence of an unreasonable
22
safety hazard”). Even Plaintiffs’ California authority cannot help Plaintiffs here because it states
23
that the duty to disclose extends to “material information known to a manufacturer and concealed
24
from a consumer.” Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 411, 420 (Ct. App. 2015)
25
(emphasis added). Thus, in these circumstances, Plaintiffs are required to plead an unreasonable
26
safety hazard.
27
28
The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that the CAC adequately alleges such an
unreasonable safety hazard. “[A] party’s allegations of an unreasonable safety hazard must
35
1
describe more than merely ‘conjectural and hypothetical’ injuries.” Williams, 851 F.3d at 1028
2
(quoting Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, the CAC obliquely
3
claims that “the Defects raise serious safety concerns” based on one user who “was temporarily
4
stranded on a freezing night after her Phone abruptly died when she was trying to request a ride
5
from the ride-sharing app Uber.” CAC ¶ 180. Not only have Plaintiffs identified only one
6
example, but the safety risk of being stranded with a nonfunctioning phone has been held to be too
7
speculative to amount to an unreasonable safety hazard. See Missaghi v. Apple Inc., No. 13-CV-
8
02003-GAF, 2013 WL 12114470, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013); see also Smith v. Ford Motor
9
Co., 462 F. App’x 660, 663 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting as too speculative the safety concern that a
defective ignition-lock could leave consumers stranded on the side of the road). Similarly, the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Ninth Circuit has concluded that the more-egregious risk of fires due to defects in a boat motor
12
were hypothetical where the complaint contained no allegations that any customer had
13
experienced such a fire. Williams, 851 F.3d at 1028–29. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
14
Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ statutory fraud claims under California, Florida, North
15
Carolina, Texas, and Washington law with leave to amend to allege whether the defects pose an
16
unreasonable safety hazard.
17
18
iii.
Manifestation of Defect Outside Warranty
Huawei separately contends that there can be no fraudulent omissions claims for Plaintiffs
19
Gorbatchev, Christensen, and Tran because their Nexus 6Ps did not allegedly malfunction until
20
after the expiration of the Limited Warranty, CAC ¶¶ 19–21, 28–29, 52–53. Huawei Mot. 22–23.
21
It is true that, as a policy matter, California courts have cabined the scope of the duty to disclose to
22
avoid the unsavory result that manufacturers are on the hook for every product defect that occurs
23
at any time, regardless of any time limits contained in their warranties. See Daugherty v. Am.
24
Honda Motor Co., 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118, 122 (Ct App. 2006); see also Williams, 851 F.3d at 1029
25
(“[T]he fact that the alleged defect concerns premature, but usually post-warranty, onset of a
26
natural condition raises concerns about the use of consumer fraud statutes to impermissibly extend
27
a product’s warranty period.”). But this policy consideration appears to be a variation on
28
Huawei’s arguments above, and Huawei has not fully explained how it independently justifies
36
1
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ fraud claims. Accordingly, at this stage, the Court does not rely on this
2
basis to dismiss the fraud claims of Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Christensen, and Tran.
iv.
3
4
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
The California Plaintiffs bring a claim under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act
5
(“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1780, on behalf of the California subclass. CAC ¶ 310. Huawei
6
argues that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the statutory provision. Huawei Mot. 23.
7
Specifically, under the CLRA, “concurrently with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall file
8
an affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county described in this
9
section as a proper place for the trial of the action.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d). The statute also
provides the appropriate course of action when the plaintiff fails to comply: dismissal without
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
prejudice. Id.
12
Plaintiffs do not dispute that none of the California Plaintiffs filed the CLRA affidavit
13
required by the statute. Opp’n 50. Instead, Plaintiffs characterize this requirement as a state
14
procedural rule that does not apply in federal court. Id. Plaintiffs’ characterization is inaccurate.
15
“The clear intent of the [CLRA] is to provide and facilitate pre-complaint settlements of consumer
16
actions wherever possible and to establish a limited period during which such settlement may be
17
accomplished.” Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 124 Cal. Rptr. 852, 859 (Ct. App.
18
1975). In this way, “compliance with the [notice] requirement is necessary to state a claim.”
19
Wehlage v. EmpRes Healthcare Inc., No. 10-CV-05839-CW, 2012 WL 380364, at *7 (N.D. Cal.
20
Feb. 6, 2012). Therefore, this Court and multiple other California district courts have required
21
submission of the CLRA affidavit. See Romero v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC, No. 14-CV-05189-
22
BLF, 2015 WL 2125004, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2015); see also Rossetti v. Stearn’s Prods., Inc.,
23
No. 16-CV-01875-GW, 2016 WL 3277295, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016); McVicar, 1 F. Supp.
24
3d at 1056; In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2012). But
25
see Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 986, 999 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (holding on the
26
facts of the case that the notice requirement “does not apply to CLRA claims filed in federal
27
court”).
28
In their opposition, Plaintiffs state that “[s]hould the Court require venue affidavits here,
37
1
Plaintiffs will attach them to an amended complaint.” Opp’n 50. Accordingly, the Court
2
GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim with leave to file the necessary
3
CLRA affidavit.
4
5
v.
California Unfair Competition & False Advertising Laws
The California Plaintiffs assert a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law
6
(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and a claim under California’s False
7
Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., on behalf of the California
8
subclass. CAC ¶¶ 298, 333. Huawei makes claim-specific arguments for dismissal, and the Court
9
addresses the UCL and FAL claims in turn.
(1)
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
UCL
The Court first turns to the UCL claim. The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or
12
fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Cel-Tech
13
Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 539 (Cal. 1999). Because the statute is
14
written in the disjunctive, it applies separately to business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2)
15
unfair, or (3) fraudulent. See Pastoria v. Nationwide Ins., 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148, 153 (Ct. App.
16
2003). Plaintiffs contend that Huawei’s conduct has violated all three prongs. Huawei, however,
17
argues that the CAC does not adequately allege that its conduct was unlawful, unfair, or
18
fraudulent. Huawei Mot. 24–25.
19
(a)
Unlawful Business Act or Practice
20
Plaintiffs predicate their claim under the “unlawful” prong in part on Huawei’s alleged
21
violation of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. See CAC ¶ 300. The “unlawful” prong of the
22
UCL covers “any business practice that violate[s] an independent statutory duty.” Cel-Tech
23
Commc’ns, 973 P.2d at 549. Because the Court has already concluded that the California
24
Plaintiffs have stated a claim against Huawei under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, they have
25
also stated a claim against Huawei for violation of the UCL “unlawful” prong. Accordingly, the
26
Court DENIES Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the unlawful prong.
27
(b)
28
Unfair Business Act or Practice
The “unfair” prong of the UCL creates a cause of action for a business practice that is
38
1
unfair even if not proscribed by some other law. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63
2
P.3d 937, 943 (Cal. 2003). The UCL does not define the term “unfair,” and the proper definition
3
in the consumer context is “currently in flux” among California courts. See Lozano v. AT & T
4
Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 735–36 (9th Cir. 2007).
5
Although the precise test for the UCL’s “unfair” prong has not been definitively
6
established, Plaintiffs endorse the balancing test enunciated in South Bay Chevrolet v. General
7
Motors Acceptance Corp., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999), or the FTC Act section 5 test
8
employed in Camacho v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (Ct. App.
9
2006). Opp’n 39. Pursuant to the South Bay balancing test, a practice is “unfair” “when it offends
an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
or substantially injurious to consumers.” 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 316. “This test involves balancing
12
the harm to the consumer against the utility of the defendant’s practice.” Lozano, 504 F.3d at 735
13
(citing S. Bay, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 315). Under the FTC Act section 5 test, three factors define
14
unfairness: “(1) the consumer injury must be substantial; (2) the injury must not be outweighed by
15
any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) it must be an injury that
16
consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided.” Camacho, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 777.
17
Huawei contends that regardless of the test applied, Plaintiffs’ claim fails. Huawei Mot. 24–25;
18
see also Huawei Reply 15 (“No matter what test is applied, the [CAC] lacks any factual basis to
19
sustain such a claim.”).
20
Under any test, Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to establish that Huawei engages in
21
a “practice of selling defective phones without providing an adequate remedy to cure the Defects.”
22
CAC ¶ 302. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to five aspects of “Defendants” Huawei and Google’s
23
conduct: (1) knowingly sold defective phones, (2) refused to repair or replace phones when the
24
defects manifested outside the warranty period, (3) avoided providing warranty service by blaming
25
minor cosmetic issues, (4) had long wait periods on warranty claims, and (5) provided replacement
26
phones that were also defective. Id. ¶ 301. Although Plaintiffs endorse evaluating this conduct as
27
a whole without testing the sufficiency of each aspect, the problem is that Plaintiffs lump Huawei
28
and Google together under the heading of “Defendants” when each aspect does not apply
39
1
uniformly to both. Therefore, the Court must undertake the difficult endeavor of teasing out
2
which actions the CAC attributes to Huawei alone.
Ground (1) is easily discarded, as it merely parrots the already-rejected contention that
3
Huawei had knowledge of the defects at the time of sale. Ground (2) also falls away because the
5
California courts have held that there can be no “unfair” business practice, at least under the FTC
6
Act section 5 test, when the product functions as warranted throughout the term of an express
7
warranty. Daugherty, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 130 (“[T]he failure to disclose a defect that might, or
8
might not, shorten the effective life span of an automobile part that functions precisely as
9
warranted throughout the term of its express warranty . . . does not constitute an unfair practice
10
under the UCL.”). Ground (3) appears more promising, but Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
facts to support it. Only one California Plaintiff alleges that Huawei denied warranty coverage
12
based on a cosmetic flaw in his phone. See CAC ¶ 15 (“Huawei informed [Plaintiff]
13
Makcharoenwoodhi that his warranty was voided because his Phone had a small dent by the
14
volume button.”).7 One isolated instance where Huawei allegedly did not provide warranty
15
coverage based on a minor cosmetic issue does not rise to the level of an unfair practice of failing
16
to honor its warranties.
Ground (4) asserts that Huawei “[r]equir[ed] consumers to wait several weeks to several
17
18
months to receive accommodation for warranty claims.” CAC ¶ 301.d. However, Plaintiffs have
19
not identified any California Plaintiff who complains about wait times, see id. ¶¶ 65, 85, 122, 156,
20
and Plaintiffs do not argue, by reference to allegations in the CAC, that there is a basis to infer that
21
Huawei’s practice has affected any California resident. Moreover, the failure to provide timely
22
responses to warranty claims might amount to poor customer service but, standing alone, cannot
23
fairly be characterized as immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous. Finally, based on the
24
present allegations, ground (5) does not apply to Huawei at all: Google is the only actor alleged to
25
have provided certain Plaintiffs with a defective replacement phone. Id. ¶¶ 49, 75, 113–14, 136.
26
7
27
28
Plaintiffs separately point to the allegations by Ohio Plaintiff Servodio. Even if those allegations
could be relevant for a California claim under California law, they state only that Huawei noted a
small dent in the side of his phone and determined that his phone was ineligible for warranty
coverage, not that Huawei denied coverage because of the dent. Id. ¶¶ 122, 124.
40
1
Thus, none of Plaintiffs’ five asserted aspects of Huawei’s conduct withstands scrutiny at the
2
motion to dismiss stage.
3
More broadly, the CAC pleads that Huawei’s conduct is unfair because it “violated
4
California public policy, legislatively declared in the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
5
requiring a manufacturer to ensure that goods it places on the market are fit for their ordinary and
6
intended purposes.” Id. ¶ 301. Even if that description of the Song–Beverly Act accurately
7
captures the general thrust of the statute, it fails to account for the Song–Beverly Act’s
8
circumscribed geographic reach to sales of consumer goods in California. See Cal. Civ. Code
9
§ 1792. At a minimum, the Song–Beverly Act’s purpose is not offended by sales of
unmerchantable consumer goods outside the state of California. Thus, like with Plaintiffs’ claim
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
under the Song–Beverly Act, Plaintiffs’ claim under the UCL unfair prong fails because the CAC
12
does not allege that the California Plaintiffs purchased their phones in California.
13
14
15
16
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim
under the unfair prong with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
(c)
Fraudulent Business Act or Practice
In the CAC, Plaintiffs identify three fraudulent acts on the part of Huawei and Google: (1)
17
“[k]nowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiffs and California Subclass members the
18
existence of the Defects in the Phones”; (2) “[f]alsely marketing the Phones as being functional
19
and not possessing defects that would render them useless”; and (3) “[p]romoting the battery
20
capabilities and lifespan despite knowing of the significant Defects in the Phones.” CAC ¶ 303.
21
Putting aside the fact that the allegations do not distinguish between Huawei and Google, all three
22
acts are premised on Huawei’s knowledge of the defects at the time of sale to the California
23
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ opposition likewise characterizes the claim under the UCL fraud prong as
24
turning on the “allegations of Defendants’ knowledge of the Nexus 6Ps core defects, failure to
25
disclose them, and portrayal of these phones as well functioning.” Opp’n 40. As the Court has
26
repeatedly reiterated, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Huawei had knowledge of the
27
defects when the California Plaintiffs purchased their phones. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
28
Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the fraud prong with leave to amend to
41
1
allege that Huawei had knowledge of the defects at the time that the California Plaintiffs
2
purchased their phones.
3
(2)
FAL
4
The Court next addresses the FAL claim. In relevant part, the statutory provision provides:
5
11
It is unlawful for any . . . corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to
dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or
otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter
into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated . . . from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper
or other publication, or any advertising device, . . . or in any other manner or
means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real
or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning
any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or
disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which
by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.
12
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Huawei contends that Plaintiffs’ FAL claim is inadequately pled
13
because they fail to allege actual reliance on an advertisement by Huawei. Huawei Mot. 23.
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
14
Huawei is correct. As reflected in the statutory language quoted above, an FAL claim
15
requires an advertising statement. See Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, No. 14-
16
CV-00582-JD, 2015 WL 4967247, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) (“There can be no FAL claim
17
where there is no ‘statement’ at all.”); VP Racing Fuels, Inc. v. Gen. Petroleum Corp., 673 F.
18
Supp. 2d 1073, 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“The underlying element of a false advertising claim is
19
some type of advertising statement.”). The CAC is devoid of any factual allegation that Huawei
20
made an advertising statement. The only allegation for the FAL claim regarding advertisements is
21
that “Defendants promoted false and misleading [statements] through advertising, marketing and
22
other publications,” CAC ¶ 335, but that allegation fails to separate out Huawei’s and Google’s
23
conduct and the CAC otherwise refers only to advertising statements by Google. Therefore,
24
Plaintiffs cannot plead actual reliance on any advertising statement by Huawei because they have
25
not identified any statement by Huawei. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to
26
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAL claim with leave to amend to allege facts about Plaintiffs’ actual reliance
27
on an advertising statement made by Huawei.
28
42
vi.
1
2
Ohio Trade Deceptive Practices Act
Plaintiff Servodio asserts a claim under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
3
(“ODTPA”) on behalf of the Ohio subclass. CAC ¶¶ 461–75. This claim must be dismissed
4
because Servodio, as a consumer, lacks standing to sue under the ODTPA.
5
Although the Ohio Supreme Court has not addressed this question, the Ohio Court of
Appeals has held that the ODTPA affords no relief to consumers because the statute is designed to
7
protect commercial actors against objectionable commercial conduct. Dawson v. Blockbuster,
8
Inc., 2006-Ohio-1240, ¶ 24. It is well settled that Ohio courts look to the interpretation of the
9
analogous federal Lanham Act when interpreting the ODTPA, Chandler & Assoc., Inc. v. Am.’s
10
Healthcare All., Inc., 709 N.E.2d 190, 195 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997), and all five circuits to address
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
the issue have held that consumers have no standing to sue under the Lanham Act, see 5 J.
12
Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27:39 (5th ed. 2017)
13
(citing the holdings of the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits). Although at least
14
one federal district court has reached a contrary conclusion, “[t]he vast majority of federal courts
15
and all lower state courts to address the issue have concluded that relief under the [ODTPA] is not
16
available to consumers.” Phillips v. Philip Morris Cos., 290 F.R.D. 476, 482 (N.D. Ohio 2013).
17
Plaintiffs cite a case where the District Court of New Hampshire deferred deciding the
18
ODTPA standing issue at the motion for certification stage. In re Dial Complete Mktg. & Sales
19
Practices Litig., 320 F.R.D. 326, 328 n.1 (D.N.H. 2017). Although the court stated that Ohio law
20
on the issue is “unsettled,” the court also noted that the parties had not “properly briefed the
21
issue.” Id. Here, in contrast, the parties have sufficiently briefed the issue, and Plaintiffs have not
22
provided authority outweighing the many cases that go against their position.
23
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the ODTPA claim.
24
Because consumers cannot bring the ODTPA claim as a matter of law, the Court dismisses this
25
claim without leave to amend.
26
27
28
c.
Unjust Enrichment Claim
Plaintiffs’ final cause of action is for unjust enrichment. CAC ¶¶ 278–83. Relying on
Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015), this Court has held that,
43
1
under California law, a claim alleging unjust enrichment states a claim for relief as a quasi-
2
contract claim for restitution. Romero, 2015 WL 2125004, at *9; see also ESG Capital Partners,
3
LP v. Stratos, 828 F.3d 1023, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (“While California case law appears unsettled
4
on the availability of such a cause of action, th[e Ninth] Circuit has construed the common law to
5
allow an unjust enrichment cause of action through quasi-contract.”). This Court has also rejected
6
the notion that unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed at the pleadings stage even if they
7
are duplicative of other claims. See Romero, 2015 WL 2125004, at *9 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
8
8(d)(2)).
9
However, Plaintiffs do not identify any particular law but instead assert their claim “on
behalf of the nationwide Class based upon universal principles in equity.” CAC ¶ 279. As this
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Court and other courts in this district have recognized, “due to variances among state laws, failure
12
to allege which state law governs a common law claim is grounds for dismissal.” Romero v.
13
Flowers Bakeries, LLC, No. 14-CV-05189-BLF, 2016 WL 469370, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8,
14
2016); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 781 F. Supp. 2d 955, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
15
(“Several other courts in this district have similarly held that a plaintiff must specify the state
16
under which it brings an unjust enrichment claim.”). In order for the Court to determine whether
17
the unjust enrichment claim has been adequately pled, Plaintiff must allege the applicable law.
18
19
20
21
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the unjust enrichment
claim with leave to amend to assert which state law applies.
4.
Claims Asserted Against Google
In broad strokes, the CAC asserts three categories of claims against Google—warranty
22
claims, fraud claims, and unjust enrichment claims. The Court first addresses an argument about
23
Google’s choice-of-law clause that cuts across these three categories for the non-California
24
Plaintiffs who purchased from Google, then addresses each category individually.
25
26
a.
Google’s Choice-of-Law Clause
Google first seeks dismissal of claims under out-of-state laws for five non-California
27
Plaintiffs who purchased their Nexus 6Ps from Google. Google Mot. 3. Specifically, Plaintiffs
28
Tran, Berry, and Leone purchased their Nexus 6Ps through the Google Store, and Plaintiffs
44
1
Martorello and Jones purchased theirs directly from Google. CAC ¶¶ 38, 52, 70, 111, 130. Under
2
Google’s Terms of Sale, “[t]he laws of California, U.S.A. apply to these Terms, excluding
3
California’s choice of law rules, and will apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these
4
Terms.” Google argues that this choice-of-law clause should be enforced against the out-of-state
5
Plaintiffs attempting to assert non-California based causes of action, Google Mot. 3–4, and
6
Plaintiffs offer no meaningful response. The Court briefly examines the issues related to Google’s
7
choice-of-law clause.
8
9
One issue is whether these out-of-state Plaintiffs mutually assented to Google’s Terms of
Sale, a question which implicates the law of Internet-based contract formation. As the Ninth
Circuit has recognized, “[c]ontracts formed on the Internet come primarily in two flavors:
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
‘clickwrap’ (or ‘click-through’) agreements, in which website users are required to click on an ‘I
12
agree’ box after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use; and ‘browsewrap’
13
agreements, where a website’s terms and conditions of use are generally posted on the website via
14
a hyperlink at the bottom of the screen.” Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175–76
15
(9th Cir. 2014). Google submits evidence that its Terms of Sale fall in the former category
16
because, for online purchases, customers must click a button which indicates that the customer
17
agrees to the Terms of Sale. Gotuaco Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 57-2. Plaintiffs do not argue to the
18
contrary. In any event, regardless of whether Google’s Terms of Sale are more appropriately
19
characterized as a “clickwrap” or “browsewrap” agreement, courts have often enforced such
20
agreements when the user “had actual notice of the Terms of Use or was required to affirmatively
21
acknowledge the Terms of Use before completing his online purchase.” Nguyen, 763 F.3d at
22
1176; see also, e.g., Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC, No. 16-CV-07013-LHK, 2017
23
WL 3492110, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017). The Court sees no reason to depart from those
24
cases here, and Plaintiffs provide none.
25
Another issue is whether to enforce the contractual choice-of-law provision. California
26
law recognizes “strong policy considerations favoring the enforcement of freely negotiated choice-
27
of-law clauses” in contracts. Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 834 P.2d 1148, 1149 (Cal.
28
1992). Typically, choice-of-law provisions will be enforced in California unless (1) the chosen
45
1
state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction or (2) application of the chosen
2
state’s law would be contrary to a fundamental policy of another interested state. Id. at 1151.
3
Neither of those exceptions is applicable in the instant case.
4
As to the first exception, California has a substantial relationship to defendant Google
5
because Google has its principal place of business in California and seeks to apply California law
6
to its sales transactions. See CAC ¶ 161. Courts have reached the same conclusion on nearly
7
identical choice-of-law provisions being applied in nearly the same manner. See Rojas-Lozano v.
8
Google, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (enforcing Google’s choice-of-law
9
provision in part because “California has a substantial relationship to Google”). As for the second
exception, this Court has not located or been directed to any authority where a court in Florida,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, or Pennsylvania has declined to apply California consumer law
12
for public policy reasons. In fact, a court in Pennsylvania has even agreed to apply California law
13
in an unfair business practices case, explaining that “Pennsylvania has no interests that would be
14
impaired by the application of California law.” Nat’l Conference of Bar Examiners v. Multistate
15
Legal Studies, Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 485, 488 (E.D. Pa. 2005). Without any argument to the
16
contrary from Plaintiffs, the Court agrees with Google that its choice-of-law clause may properly
17
be enforced against the out-of-state Plaintiffs.
18
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty,
19
implied warranty, and fraud claims of Plaintiffs Martorello, Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone to the
20
extent those claims are premised on Florida, Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania
21
law, respectively. The Court also GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the related state-law
22
statutory claims—namely, Plaintiff Martorello’s claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
23
Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.204 et seq., CAC ¶¶ 340–51; Plaintiff Tran’s
24
claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFDBPA”),
25
815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 505/1 et seq., and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
26
(“IUDTPA”), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq., CAC ¶¶ 352–83; Plaintiff Berry’s claim under
27
the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903 et. seq., CAC
28
¶¶ 397–414; Plaintiff Jones’s claim under the North Dakota Consumer Fraud Act (“NDCFA”),
46
1
N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-01 et seq., CAC ¶¶ 444–60; and Plaintiff Leone’s claim under the
2
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“PUTPCPL”), Pa. Stat. Ann.
3
§ 201-1 et seq., CAC ¶¶ 488–500. The Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss these claims
4
with leave to amend.
b.
5
Warranty Claims
Plaintiffs assert four sets of warranty claims: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of
6
7
the implied warranty of merchantability, (3) violation of the California Song–Beverly Consumer
8
Warranty Act, and (4) violation of the federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. Google moves to
9
dismiss all four causes of action. The Court addresses each in turn.
i.
10
Plaintiffs bring their first cause of action for breach of express warranty on behalf of a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Breach of Express Warranty
12
putative nationwide class but do not specify which law governs the claim. CAC ¶ 214.
13
Alternatively, they assert claims for breach of express warranty on behalf of the putative statewide
14
subclasses under the laws of the respective states. Id. ¶ 215.
Unlike with Huawei, Plaintiffs do not plead that the Nexus 6P is accompanied by an
15
16
express written warranty from Google. Rather, Plaintiffs turn to statements that Google made in
17
advertising for the Nexus 6P. In particular, the Google webpage for the Nexus 6P states that
18
charging is “fast—get up to seven hours of use after only ten minutes of charging.” CAC ¶ 227.a;
19
RJN, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs also identify two other potentially relevant statements. First, the website
20
also provides that the battery “keeps you talking, texting and apping into the night.” CAC ¶ 227.c;
21
RJN, Ex. 1. Along the same lines, a Google presentation contained a statement that “[b]attery life
22
keeps you going all day and into the night.” CAC ¶¶ 7, 227.b.8
According to Plaintiffs, those statements are concrete promises that give rise to Plaintiffs’
23
24
8
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs also point to a representation at the 2015 launch event by Google’s Product
Management Director Sabrina Ellis that, under the Nexus Protect insurance package, consumers
with valid claims would “get a new device as early as the next business day.” CAC ¶¶ 170, 227.d.
Google argues that that statement cannot form the basis for any of the California Plaintiffs’
express warranty claims because no California Plaintiff alleges purchasing the Nexus Protect
insurance package. Google Mot. 6. Plaintiffs offer no response in their opposition. The Court
agrees with Google that there is no express warranty based on this statement for Plaintiffs without
a Nexus Protect insurance package.
47
1
express warranty claims. Opp’n 21–24. Google responds that none of its statements are
2
sufficiently specific to create an express warranty, and thus the express warranty claims of all
3
Plaintiffs should be dismissed. Google Mot. 5–9. If the express warranty claims are not dismissed
4
on this ground, Google provides various bases applicable to different classes of Plaintiffs. As to
5
all Plaintiffs, Google contends that their allegations do not plausibly plead reliance on Google’s
6
advertising statements. Id. at 6–9. As to Plaintiffs that bought from Google, Google contends that
7
their express warranty claims are barred by Google’s disclaimer. Id. at 5. As to Plaintiffs that did
8
not purchase from Google, Google contends that the lack of privity defeats their claims. Id. at 5,
9
8–9. Finally, as to an undefined grouping of Plaintiffs, Google claims that they did not give
Google notice and an opportunity to cure. Id. at 5; Google Reply 5. The Court sorts through this
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
tangled series of arguments by taking them one at a time.
12
13
(1)
Actionable Misrepresentations
Google does not dispute that an express warranty claim may be based on advertising
14
statements. See Rice v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., No. 12-CV-07923-CAS, 2013 WL 146270, at *11
15
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013). Instead, Google contends that none of the identified statements amounts
16
to a specific and unequivocal representation regarding the Nexus 6P. Google Mot. 5–6. Under
17
California law, which Google asserts as representative of the other states and Plaintiffs rely on
18
exclusively for this issue, no express warranty is created when the defendant makes
19
“[g]eneralized, vague, and unspecified assertions.” Azoulai v. BMW of N. Am. LLC, No. 16-CV-
20
00589-BLF, 2017 WL 1354781, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (citation omitted); Cal. Com.
21
Code § 2313(2) (“[A]n affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to
22
be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.”). To
23
constitute an actionable express warranty, the statement regarding the product must be “specific
24
and measurable.” Azoulai, 2017 WL 1354781, at *8 (citing Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed
25
Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997)).
26
Google’s statement about “get[ting] up to seven hours of use after only ten minutes of
27
charging” is sufficiently specific and measurable. Most prominently, that statement relies on
28
numerical figures with a set meaning and defines the relationship between them—specifically, if
48
1
the user charges for “ten minutes,” he will be able to use the phone for “up to seven hours.”
2
Google counters with a footnote hanging off its “get up to seven hours” statement, which says that
3
“[a]ll battery life claims are approximate and based on an average mixed use profile that includes
4
both usage and standby time.” RJN, Ex. 1; see also id. (“Actual battery performance will vary and
5
depends on many factors . . . .”). That footnote does not undermine the specificity of the “get up
6
to seven hours” statement but merely clarifies that the “get up to seven hours” statement
7
contemplates normal use of the phone. In other words, a consumer who continuously streams
8
movies on his phone should not be upset if he is unable to watch for seven hours after charging for
9
ten minutes. But that does not preclude a consumer who engages in normal usage from reasonably
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
expecting to get up to seven hours of use after ten minutes of charging.
Measurability is not defeated by the fact that Google’s statement is phrased as assuring “up
12
to” seven hours, but not guaranteeing exactly seven hours. On this point, this case lies closer to
13
Plaintiffs’ cited authority than Google’s. In the case Google cites, the district court concluded that
14
a car manufacturer did not create an express warranty in advertising language, which stated that
15
the powertrain in its trucks “offers a maximum highway range of up to 680 miles on a single fill-
16
up.” Acedo v. DMAX, Ltd., No. 15-CV-02443-MMM, 2015 WL 12696176, at *24 (C.D. Cal.
17
Nov. 13, 2015). Although the court noted the “qualifying language ‘up to,’” the court did not rest
18
its conclusion on that basis alone. Id. The defendant’s statement also specified that the 680-mile
19
range was a “maximum” and included a footnote expressly indicating that each individual driver’s
20
“range may be less.” Id. Google’s statement does not contain any comparable hedging language.
21
Moreover, in Acedo, the plaintiff’s theory was that, based on the car manufacturer’s statement, he
22
justifiably believed that “he would actually be able to drive 680 . . . miles on a single tank of gas.”
23
Id. Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs construe Google’s statement as a warranty that their phones would
24
not experience sudden shutdowns from battery failure, not that their phones would consistently get
25
exactly seven hours or almost seven hours of use.
26
In that last respect, this case is analogous to Plaintiffs’ cited authority. In In re Toyota
27
Motor Corp., the warranty “statements convey[ed] that [the] [d]efendants’ use of advanced
28
technology in their vehicles . . . enhances safety.” 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1182. The plaintiffs’ theory
49
1
was that the use of the advanced technology was actually contributing to the danger of sudden
2
unintended acceleration in the defendants’ vehicles. Id. In this way, the plaintiffs plausibly
3
alleged breach of express warranty because the pleaded facts represented the “antithesis” of the
4
defendants’ statements. Id. The same is true in this case. Google’s statement that a user can “get
5
up to seven hours of use after only ten minutes of charging” is directly contrary to Plaintiffs’
6
allegations about sudden shutdowns from battery failures. See, e.g., CAC ¶¶ 13 (alleging that “[i]f
7
[Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi] connected the Phone to a charger and fully charged the Phone, it
8
would turn back on and the battery would operate for approximately 10 minutes before the battery
9
would run out and the Phone would turn off again”), 60 (alleging that “[i]n less than one hour
[Plaintiff Beheler’s] Phone would go from a fully charged battery to shutting down, despite being
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
in safe mode with Google’s Chrome browser the only open application”). Thus, Google’s “get up
12
to seven hours” statement is sufficiently specific and measurable.
13
By contrast, the statements that the Nexus 6P’s battery life “keeps you talking, texting and
14
apping into the night” and “keeps you going all day and into the night” are not adequate to create
15
express warranties. For one thing, neither statement discusses what length of time of charging or
16
what level of battery charge is envisioned. Equally important, the references to “into the night”
17
and “all day and into the night” are inexact and do not provide a baseline against which to measure
18
the rest of the statement. Such vague product superiority claims cannot reasonably be interpreted
19
by consumers as reliable factual claims about the battery life and performance of the Nexus 6P.
20
See Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th Cir. 1990)
21
(“[A]dvertising which merely states in general terms that one product is superior is not
22
actionable.” (citation omitted)). Indeed, courts have found similar statements to be nonactionable
23
puffery, including that a consumer using the defendant’s battery “will always have access to
24
power” when needed. Punian v. Gillette Co., No. 14-CV-05028-LHK, 2016 WL 1029607, at *9
25
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016).
26
The “keeps you talking, texting and apping” and “keeps you going” statements do not
27
constitute express warranties, whether taken individually or collectively. See Elias v. Hewlett-
28
Packard Co., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“[T]he combination of several ‘puff’
50
1
statements does not automatically create an actionable misrepresentation.”). Nevertheless, to the
2
extent that Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims are premised on Google’s “get up to seven hours”
3
statement, they are not properly dismissed as inactionable puffery.
(2)
4
5
Basis of the Bargain and Reliance
Google next contends that the Court should dismiss the express warranty claims of all
6
Plaintiffs because they do not adequately plead reliance on Google’s advertising statements.
7
Google Mot. 6–9. Like with Huawei, the relevant question is whether Plaintiffs must show
8
reliance on the statement or representation for it to be considered part of the “basis of the bargain”
9
under each state’s express warranty law. Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1)(a)–(b); Ind. Code Ann. § 261-2-313(1)(a)–(b); N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-313(1)(a)–(b); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 25-2-313(1)(a)–
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(b); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.26(A)(1)–(2); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.313(a)(1)–(2);
12
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 62A.2-313(1)(a)–(b). That analysis plays out somewhat differently in
13
the context of Google’s advertising statements as compared with Huawei’s written warranty.
14
In particular, authority from each of the pertinent states supports the proposition that, at a
15
minimum, the plaintiff must plead that he was aware of the advertising statements, though some
16
cases state that principle more explicitly than others. See Osborne v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 243 Cal.
17
Rptr. 815, 824 (Ct. App. 1988) (California); Royal Bus. Machs., Inc. v. Lorraine Corp., 633 F.2d
18
34, 44 & n.7 (7th Cir. 1980) (Indiana); CBS Inc., 553 N.E.2d at 1001 (New York); Harbor Point,
19
697 S.E.2d at 447 (North Carolina); Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 147 N.E.2d 612, 615–
20
16 (Ohio 1958) (Ohio); Lapray, 135 S.W.3d at 676 (Texas); Reece, 953 P.2d at 123 (citing Arrow
21
Transp., 454 P.2d at 390) (Washington). There is a logical basis for states to have different
22
standards for written warranties and advertising warranties: “‘awareness’ must be shown if the
23
plaintiff intends to argue that other types of ‘representation[s]’ (e.g., advertising statements) form
24
part of the express warranty; i.e., where the representations are used by the plaintiff to define the
25
scope of the warranty.” In re MyFord, 2015 WL 5118308, at *6 (emphasis deleted) (interpreting
26
Washington law).
27
Plaintiffs challenge this conclusion only with respect to California law, arguing that
28
51
1
California does not require reliance. Opp’n 24.9 Although, as described above, the California
2
Court of Appeal’s decision in Weinstat makes clear that a plaintiff need not plead reliance on
3
individual representations, California law still requires the plaintiff to plead exposure to the
4
advertising. See Rosales v. FitFlop USA, LLC, 882 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1178 (S.D. Cal. 2012)
5
(“While this does not require that plaintiff relied on the individual advertisements, it does require
6
that plaintiff was actually exposed to the advertising.”). Indeed, one of Plaintiffs’ central
7
authorities explains that, at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiffs need not allege reliance but must
8
provide “specific allegations that they were aware of the statements made in a national advertising
9
campaign.” In re Toyota Motor Corp., 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1182–83 & n.22.
Thus, the operative question is whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that they became
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
aware of Google’s statements by exposure to its advertising. Plaintiffs do not clear that hurdle
12
simply by alleging in a conclusory manner that “Plaintiffs and Class members were exposed to
13
and relied on [Google’s above-identified] statements when they decided to buy Nexus 6P Phones”
14
and that “Google’s express warranties formed part of the basis of the bargain that was reached
15
when Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased their Phones.” CAC ¶ 228. The Court must
16
scrutinize each individual Plaintiff’s allegations about exposure to Google’s actionable
17
promotional promises. For convenience, the Court groups Plaintiffs by controlling state law.
18
(a)
California
The three California Plaintiffs and the five out-of-state Plaintiffs who purchased from
19
20
Google (Plaintiffs Martorello, Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone) are subject to California law. Six of
21
these Plaintiffs—Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, Christensen, Martorello, Berry, and
22
Jones—do not allege that they saw any advertising statements; instead, they merely allege that
23
they purchased the Nexus 6P. CAC ¶¶ 12–51, 70–78, 111–18. The remaining two Plaintiffs plead
24
facts about advertising, but those allegations still are insufficient. Though the CAC alleges that
25
9
26
27
28
Plaintiffs decline to respond to Google’s assertions with respect to the other states because, in
Plaintiffs’ view, “Google’s legal challenges to the express warranty claims of non-California
Plaintiffs contradict its position that California law controls.” Opp’n 24 (citations omitted). But
Plaintiffs misread Google’s Motion to Dismiss, which advocates applying California law to those
out-of-state Plaintiffs who purchased from Google and are subject to the choice-of-law provision
in Google’s Terms of Sale. See Google Mot. 3–4, 6.
52
1
Plaintiff Tran “saw online advertisements representing that the Google Nexus 6P had a superior
2
battery life,” id. ¶ 52, it does not identify which advertisements he observed. That fact matters
3
because only one of Google’s statements—the “get up to seven hours” statement—is sufficiently
4
specific and measurable at this stage to create an express warranty. As to Plaintiff Leone, the
5
CAC alleges that he “watched the live stream of the Nexus 6P release event in San Francisco and
6
was exposed to Google’s representations regarding the Phone at that event,” and so he understood
7
that “superior battery life” was a major selling point for the Nexus 6P. Id. ¶ 129. But Plaintiffs do
8
not allege that the “get up to seven hours” statement was made at the launch event; that statement
9
appeared on Google’s website. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Gorbatchev, Christensen, Martorello,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone with leave to amend to allege which advertisements they saw.
12
(b)
13
Indiana
Indiana Plaintiff Beheler’s express warranty claim must also be dismissed on this ground.
14
The CAC states that “[t]he Nexus 6P’s purportedly long battery life factored heavily into
15
[Plaintiff] Beheler’s decision to purchase this Phone.” CAC ¶ 59. But the CAC does not present
16
the source of Plaintiff Beheler’s view that the Nexus 6P had a long battery life. More precisely, it
17
is not alleged that Plaintiff Beheler received that information from advertising at all, let alone the
18
advertising containing Google’s “get up to seven hours” statement. Accordingly, the Court
19
GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiff Beheler with leave
20
to amend to allege which advertisements he saw.
21
22
(c)
New York
The CAC does not allege that New York Plaintiff Davydov saw or relied on the advertising
23
statements identified as the basis for Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims. CAC ¶¶ 79–89.
24
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of
25
Plaintiff Davydov with leave to amend to allege which advertisements he saw.
26
27
28
(d)
North Carolina
Like with New York Plaintiff Davydov, the CAC does not allege that North Carolina
Plaintiff Himes saw or relied on the advertising statements identified as the basis for Plaintiffs’
53
1
express warranty claims. CAC ¶¶ 99–110. The allegations with respect to the other North
2
Carolina Plaintiff, Harrison, are more detailed but still unsatisfactory. Specifically, Plaintiff
3
Harrison’s decision to purchase a Nexus 6P was “materially influenced” by her viewing of
4
“advertisements representing that the Nexus 6P’s battery life was very good and touting the Nexus
5
6P as Google’s top-of-the-line phone.” Id. ¶ 91. Nonetheless, that language does not appear in the
6
advertising containing Google’s “get up to seven hours” statement. Nor does the CAC otherwise
7
nail down what particular advertising or statements Plaintiff Harrison encountered. Accordingly,
8
the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claims of Plaintiffs
9
Harrison and Himes with leave to amend to allege which advertisements they saw.
(e)
10
The CAC does not allege that Ohio Plaintiff Servodio saw or relied on the advertising
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Ohio
12
statements identified as the basis for Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims. CAC ¶¶ 119–27.
13
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of
14
Plaintiff Servodio with leave to amend to allege which advertisements he saw.
(f)
15
Texas
Like with Ohio Plaintiff Servodio, the CAC does not allege that Texas Plaintiff Poore saw
16
17
or relied on the advertising statements identified as the basis for Plaintiffs’ express warranty
18
claims. CAC ¶¶ 142–51. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
19
express warranty claim of Plaintiff Poore with leave to amend to allege which advertisements he
20
saw.
21
22
(g)
Washington
Finally, the CAC alleges that Washington Plaintiff Johnston’s decision to purchase a
23
Nexus 6P was “materially influenced” by his viewing of “television and online advertisements”
24
which “promoted the Phone in part on the basis of its superior battery life.” CAC ¶ 153. For
25
many of the same reasons noted above, that allegation is not enough. Because the CAC does not
26
pinpoint which advertisements Plaintiff Johnston has seen, there is no way to tell whether they
27
contained Google’s “get up to seven hours” statement, the actionable statement Plaintiffs have
28
identified as a basis for the express warranty claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s
54
1
Motion to Dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiff Johnston with leave to amend to allege
2
which advertisements he saw.
3
4
In sum, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ express warranty
claims with leave to amend.
(3)
5
6
Disclaimer
In its motion to dismiss, Google appears to separately contend that Plaintiffs who
purchased from Google—namely, Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Martorello, Tran, Berry, Jones, and
8
Leone, CAC ¶¶ 19, 38, 52, 70, 111, 130—are barred from pursuing an express warranty claim
9
based on Google’s disclaimer in its Terms of Sale. Google Mot. 5. Google’s terms include a
10
section titled “Defects; Warranties; Disclaimer of Warranties,” which states in relevant part:
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
“GOOGLE . . . EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM[S] ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF
12
ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY DEVICES.” To the
13
extent that Google contends that that language overrides Google’s advertising statements, Google
14
is incorrect.
15
California law on limiting warranties provides that “[w]ords or conduct relevant to the
16
creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be
17
construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but . . . negation or limitation is
18
inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.” Cal. Com. Code § 2316(1).
19
“Because a disclaimer . . . is inconsistent with an express warranty, words of disclaimer . . . give
20
way to words of warranty unless some clear agreement between the parties dictates the contrary
21
relationship.” Hauter, 534 P.2d at 386; see also Arroyo v. TP-Link USA Corp., No. 14-CV-04999-
22
EJD, 2015 WL 5698752, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015). In its reply, Google appears to
23
acknowledge this line of authority: Google’s sole rebuttal to Plaintiffs’ position is that it
24
“rehashes” the argument that “Google’s sales statements created a warranty.” Google Reply 3.
25
Because the Court has already determined that Google’s “get up to seven hours” statement is
26
sufficiently specific and measurable at this stage of the proceedings to create an express warranty,
27
these Plaintiffs may rely on that statement to support their express warranty claim.
28
55
1
2
(4)
Privity
Google next makes a species of privity argument in favor of dismissing the express
3
warranty claims of all Plaintiffs who did not purchase from Google. Google Mot. 5, 8–9. In
4
particular, Google suggests that it is not covered by the state statutory language requiring an
5
affirmation or promise “made by the seller to the buyer.” Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1)(a); Ind. Code
6
Ann. § 26-1-2-313(1)(a); N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-313(1)(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 25-2-313(1)(a);
7
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.313(a)(1); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 62A.2-313(1)(a). Because
8
Google develops this argument only with respect to California and Indiana law, see Google Mot.
9
5, 9; Google Reply 4, the Court performs the analysis under these state laws.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
(a)
California
As a general matter, California law requires privity of contract in an action for breach of
12
express warranty. Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 268 P.2d 1041, 1048 (Cal. 1954); Blanco v.
13
Baxter Healthcare Corp., 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 566, 582 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating that privity of
14
contract is the “general rule” (citation omitted)). And such privity is lacking “between the original
15
seller and a subsequent purchaser who is in no way a party to the original sale.” Burr, 268 P.2d at
16
1048. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the general rule, including “where representations are
17
made by means of labels or advertisements.” Id. at 1049. The California courts appear to fit many
18
cases within this exception, going so far as to say that “[p]rivity is not required for an action based
19
upon an express warranty.” Hauter, 534 P.2d at 383 n.8 (citing Seely v. White Motor Co., 403
20
P.2d 145, 148 (Cal. 1965)); Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 27
21
(Ct. App. 2008) (“Privity is generally not required for liability on an express warranty because it is
22
deemed fair to impose responsibility on one who makes affirmative claims as to the merits of the
23
product, upon which the remote consumer presumably relies.”).
24
In light of these strong statements in the case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’
25
allegations are sufficient to invoke the privity exception with respect to Google. The CAC alleges
26
that Google and Huawei worked together to create the Nexus 6P and that Google developed the
27
software. CAC ¶ 165. Moreover, Google released the phone for pre-order and sold the phone
28
through its own Google Store. Id. ¶¶ 166, 193. Finally, Google made claims about the phone at
56
1
the launch event, id. ¶ 169, and made specific statements about the phone in advertising on its
2
website, id. ¶ 227. It is of no moment that the examples cited in Burr all involved statements by a
3
manufacturer in labels or advertising material. 268 P.2d at 1049. The justification for the
4
exception does not appear to turn solely on the status of the warrantor. Instead, “it is deemed fair
5
to impose responsibility on one who makes affirmative claims as to the merits of the product, upon
6
which the remote consumer presumably relies.” Cardinal Health 301, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 27.
7
Given Google’s significant role in the development of the Nexus 6P and its disseminated promises
8
about the phone, the Court sees no convincing reason to absolve Google of all liability for express
9
warranties to non-purchasers. Accordingly, this is not an appropriate basis on which to dismiss
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims.
(b)
Indiana
12
Although the default rule under Indiana law appears to be that “vertical privity is required
13
for claims of breach of express warranty,” Atkinson v. P & G-Clairol, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1021,
14
1026 (N.D. Ind. 2011), that rule is not absolute. In Prairie Production, Inc. v. Agchem Division-
15
Pennwalt Corp., 514 N.E.2d 1299, 1302 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), the Indiana Court of Appeals held
16
that, on the facts of the case, the plaintiff was not precluded from suing the defendant for breach of
17
express warranty even though the parties were not in privity. In particular, the court permitted the
18
plaintiff to sue the remote manufacturer where the manufacturer had made affirmations about the
19
products in advertising. Id. at 1303. The court explained that discarding the privity requirement
20
was justified in these circumstances because “manufacturers commonly extoll the merits and
21
quality of their products in . . . media directed to each purchaser in the chain of distribution” and
22
their affirmations “may effectively induce the purchase, and are even intended to have that effect.”
23
Id. at 1302–03. More recently, the Indiana Supreme Court relatedly ruled that vertical privity is
24
not a necessary condition for a consumer to bring an implied warranty of merchantability claim
25
against a manufacturer. See Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947, 959 (Ind. 2005).
26
Under these precedents, the Court concludes that Indiana Plaintiff Beheler’s implied
27
warranty claim is not barred by failure to adequately plead privity. Like the manufacturer in
28
Prairie Production, Google here made affirmations about the Nexus 6P in advertising. The Court
57
1
has already determined that one of those statements was a specific and measurable promise. Even
2
if the CAC does not sufficiently plead that Google is a manufacturer, the rationale of Prairie
3
Production extends to this case. The CAC establishes that Google had significant involvement in
4
the development of the Nexus 6P and advertised the virtues of the phone on its website in
5
statements directed to consumers to induce them to buy the product. CAC ¶¶ 165–66, 169, 193,
6
227. On these facts, it is proper to discard the privity requirement. Accordingly, this is not an
7
appropriate basis on which to dismiss Plaintiff Beheler’s express warranty claim.
(5)
8
Notice and Opportunity to Cure
Google’s offhand reference to notice in its motion to dismiss does not sufficiently raise the
10
issue for resolution. The sole mention of “notice” is in a statement that “the [California] Plaintiffs
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
do not allege reliance or pre-suit notice, as the law requires.” Google Mot. 5. Google’s reply is
12
equally unilluminating, stating that the letters of certain Plaintiffs were insufficient to put Google
13
on notice. Google Reply 5. In these filings, Google nowhere indicates what law should apply,
14
provides the relevant contours of the legal landscape, or clearly states which Plaintiffs are affected.
15
Given the potential variances among the states and Plaintiffs (as indicated by the analysis with
16
respect to Huawei), the Court declines to consider Google’s bare assertion that notice provides
17
another basis on which to dismiss Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims.
18
19
ii.
Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
20
on behalf of a putative nationwide class under an unspecified law or, alternatively, on behalf of the
21
putative statewide subclasses under the laws of the respective states. CAC ¶¶ 235–36. Plaintiffs’
22
cause of action alleges that Google “impliedly warranted that the Phones were of a merchantable
23
quality” but failed to live up to that guarantee because the Nexus 6Ps “were not in merchantable
24
condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which phones are used.” Id. ¶ 239. Google’s
25
arguments are split between Plaintiffs who purchased from Google and Plaintiffs who did not. For
26
the former group, Google contends that these Plaintiffs are barred by the explicit disclaimer of the
27
implied warranty of merchantability in its Terms of Sale. Google Mot. 5. For the latter, Google
28
contends that these Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead privity. Id. at 11–13.
58
1
(1)
Disclaimer and Unconscionability
Google first contends that the implied warranty claims of Plaintiffs Gorbatchev,
3
Martorello, Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone—who purchased their Nexus 6Ps from Google, CAC
4
¶¶ 19, 38, 52, 70, 111, 130—are barred by Google’s disclaimer in its Terms of Sale. Google Mot.
5
5. In relevant part, Google’s terms state: “GOOGLE . . . EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM[S] ALL
6
WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
7
REGARDING ANY DEVICES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
8
MERCHANTABILITY.” Plaintiffs argue that there is no evidence about whether Plaintiffs had
9
actual or constructive notice of Google’s disclaimer and that, even if they did, the CAC adequately
10
pleads that Google’s disclaimer is unconscionable. Opp’n 27–29. Neither argument is persuasive.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
First, Plaintiffs suggest that Google has not carried its burden of establishing that the
12
affirmative defense of disclaimer applies. Id. at 27–28. But Google’s submission of its Terms of
13
Sale demonstrates a valid disclaimer, and Plaintiffs have not identified any allegation in the CAC
14
that undercuts its application to this set of Plaintiffs. Under California law, a written disclaimer of
15
the implied warranty of merchantability must mention merchantability and be conspicuous. Cal.
16
Com. Code § 2316(2). Here, Google’s Terms of Sale disclaimed the implied warranty of
17
merchantability in accordance with California law because, under the bold heading “Defects;
18
Warranties; Disclaimer of Warranties,” the Terms provide in clear language and capitalized
19
formatting that Google “expressly disclaim[s] all warranties and conditions of any kind, whether
20
express or implied, regarding any devices, including any implied warranty of merchantability.”
21
The disclaimer is in all capital letters while the surrounding text is in lower case font of the same
22
size, and the disclaimer is one of only two places in the entirety of the Terms of Sale that uses
23
capitalized lettering. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the disclaimer is
24
conspicuous. See Cal. Com. Code § 1201(10) (defining “conspicuous” as covering “[a] heading
25
. . . in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size” and
26
“[l]anguage in the body of a record or display . . . in contrasting type, font, or color to the
27
surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or
28
other marks that call attention to the language”). Courts in this district have found that very
59
1
similar disclaimers barred implied warranty claims. See Minkler v. Apple, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d
2
810, 819 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (barring an implied warranty claim based on Apple’s disclaimer of
3
“ALL STATUTORY AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
4
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY”); In re Google Phone Litig., No. 10-CV-01177-
5
EJD, 2012 WL 3155571, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012) (barring an implied warranty claim based
6
on Google’s disclaimer of “ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
7
WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY DEVICES, INCLUDING ANY
8
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY”).
9
Plaintiffs attempt to overcome this conclusion by challenging whether Plaintiffs had actual
or constructive knowledge of Google’s disclaimer. Opp’n 27. Plaintiffs point out that a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
disclaimer is valid only if “the buyer has knowledge or is chargeable with notice of the disclaimer
12
before the bargain is complete.” Burr, 268 P.2d at 1047. The problem is that Plaintiffs’ position
13
conflicts with the CAC’s allegations and the law. The CAC acknowledges the existence of
14
Google’s disclaimer and the manner in which it is presented. CAC ¶¶ 245 (“Fairness therefore
15
requires invalidating the disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability in Google’s form
16
document.”), 261 (alleging that “[a]ny disclaimer of implied warranties by Google was
17
unconscionable”). In this way, Plaintiffs’ allegations are consistent with Google’s submitted
18
evidence, which provides that customers had to click a button to complete their online purchases
19
and that, next to the button, there was language advising that customer that clicking indicated
20
acceptance of Google’s Terms of Sale. Gotuaco Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs do not otherwise allege that
21
they did not see or understand the disclaimer. Thus, this case is unlike the one cited by Plaintiffs
22
where the allegations established that the plaintiff did not have a reasonable opportunity to view
23
the disclaimer prior to purchase. See Clark v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., No. 13-CV-00485-JM, 2013
24
WL 5816410, at *13 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013) (“Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, there would have
25
been no way for Plaintiff to have noticed the disclaimer prior to receiving the product manual
26
when the refrigerator was delivered.”).
27
28
Second, Plaintiffs contend that, even if the disclaimer is binding, the CAC adequately
pleads that the disclaimer is unconscionable. As explained earlier, under California law, a contract
60
1
provision is “unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, only if it is both procedurally and
2
substantively unconscionable.” In re iPhone, 2011 WL 4403963, at *7 (citing Armendariz, 6 P.3d
3
at 690). The procedural element focuses on oppression and surprise, while the substantive element
4
examines whether the terms of the agreement are so overly harsh or one-sided as to shock the
5
conscience. Aron, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 564.
6
Plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability argument is, at best, weak. They contend that the
7
disclaimer is unconscionable because Google and its customers are in an unequal bargaining
8
position and because Google had “exclusive knowledge of the Defects and true quality of the
9
Phones.” CAC ¶ 261. On the latter point, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs’
allegations are insufficient. That conclusion significantly weakens the former point that Google
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
had superior bargaining power. See In re Sony Grand Wega, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1101 (rejecting
12
argument that defendant had superior bargaining power where plaintiffs had not sufficiently
13
alleged that the defendant knew of the defect before the point of sale). Even if the terms of the
14
disclaimer are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not plead that they had no meaningful alternatives;
15
they could have purchased other phones or obtained an additional warranty from Google.
16
Davidson, 2017 WL 976048, at *12. Moreover, the CAC does not allege that Plaintiffs were
17
“surprised” by the disclaimer’s terms or that they could not or did not access Google’s Terms of
18
Sale online at the time of purchase. See id.
19
Plaintiffs make no further allegations to support their claim of substantive
20
unconscionability. Plaintiffs repeat and reemphasize that Google knew of and concealed the
21
defects at the time that it sold the Nexus 6Ps. Opp’n 28–29; CAC ¶ 245 (“Google knowingly sold
22
a defective product without disclosing the Defects, while affirmatively misrepresenting purported
23
attributes of the product that were important to consumer purchasers.”). Again, Plaintiffs’
24
allegations are insufficient to establish that conclusion. In their opposition, Plaintiffs also slightly
25
change course from their complaint, asserting that a disclaimer may be substantively
26
unconscionable any time a product is unfit for its intended use. Opp’n 29 (citing the statement in
27
Clark, 2013 WL 5816410, at *13, that the “inability to use the LG refrigerator for its intended
28
purpose suggests that substantive unconscionability may exist”). That reading of the law seems
61
1
somewhat odd, as it works to invalidate a disclaimer of the implied warranty whenever the
2
underlying implied warranty claim appears viable. In any event, Plaintiffs’ allegations are
3
insufficient to show that Google’s disclaimer “create[s] overly harsh or one-sided results as to
4
shock the conscience,” and thus Plaintiffs have not established substantive unconscionability.
5
Aron, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 564 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6
Based on the allegations in the CAC, Google’s disclaimer is not unconscionable, and the
disclaimer is enforceable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for breach of the implied
8
warranty of merchantability for express warranty for Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Martorello, Tran,
9
Berry, Jones, and Leone. The Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the implied warranty
10
claim of Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Martorello, Tran, Berry, Jones, and Leone with leave to amend to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
allege further facts in support of Plaintiffs’ lack of notice and unconscionability arguments.
(2)
12
13
Privity
For the remaining Plaintiffs who did not purchase from Google—namely, Plaintiffs
14
Makcharoenwoodhi, Christensen, Beheler, Davydov, Harrison, Himes, Servodio, Poore, and
15
Johnston, CAC ¶¶ 12, 28, 58, 79, 91, 99, 119, 142, 153—Google argues that their claims must be
16
dismissed for failure to plead privity. Google Mot. 11–13. Even for the states that do not require
17
a strict showing of privity, Google draws on the common-sense notion that, because an implied
18
warranty of merchantability is “implied in a contract for the[] sale [of goods] if the seller is a
19
merchant with respect to goods of that kind,” UCC § 2-314(1), a defendant cannot be liable unless
20
it has sold the goods in question. Google Mot. 11. Plaintiffs’ central response is that Plaintiffs’
21
claims may be sustained under the third-party beneficiary exception to the privity requirement.
22
Opp’n 31–33.
23
Most of the relevant states require privity of contract to state a claim for breach of the
24
implied warranty of merchantability. See, e.g., Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1024; Curl v. Volkswagen of
25
Am., Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1141, 1147 (Ohio 2007); Tex Enters., Inc. v. Brockway Standard, Inc., 66
26
P.3d 625, 630 (Wash. 2003). And Google is correct that Plaintiffs’ blanket assertion that
27
“Plaintiffs and Class members were in privity of contract with . . . Google by virtue of their
28
interactions with . . . Google,” CAC ¶ 242, is not plausible when some of the relevant Plaintiffs are
62
1
not alleged to have had any interactions with Google. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 12–18 (alleging that
2
Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi contacted Huawei but not Google), 90–98 (alleging that Plaintiff
3
Harrison contacted Huawei but not Google).
4
Even for the states that have abandoned the privity requirement for implied warranty
5
claims, see, e.g., Pack, 434 F.3d at 820 (Michigan); Goodin, 822 N.E.2d at 959 (Indiana), Google
6
notes that the defendants in those cases had sold the products at some point in the distribution
7
chain, see, e.g., Gared Holdings, LLC v. Best Bolt Prod., Inc., 991 N.E.2d 1005, 1016 (Ind. Ct.
8
App. 2013) (emphasizing that the defendant had made multiple sales and was willing to sell to
9
prospective buyers). The requirement that the defendant has sold the product at issue flows
naturally from the statutory language, which provides that an implied warranty of merchantability
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
claim arises in a contract for the sale of goods by a merchant seller of those goods. See UCC § 2-
12
314(1); see also Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-314(1) (same); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2314(1)
13
(same). The CAC does not satisfy this requirement because it nowhere provides that Google sold
14
the Nexus 6Ps to the retailers from whom Plaintiffs purchased. Although the CAC states that
15
“Defendants sell the Phones . . . through authorized retailers, including Newegg and Best Buy,”
16
CAC ¶ 168, it fails to distinguish between Google and Huawei. Indeed, without more factual
17
detail, it would be implausible to conclude that both Google and Huawei sold the same physical
18
phones through retailers. See Garcia v. M-F Athletic Co., No. 11-CV-02430-WBS, 2012 WL
19
531008, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (“It seems, however, implausible if not impossible that all
20
three defendants sold plaintiff the [product].”).
21
Plaintiffs attempt to steer around these roadblocks by resort to the third-party beneficiary
22
exception to the privity requirement. CAC ¶ 242; Opp’n 31–33. As noted above, the third-party
23
beneficiary exception allows a plaintiff to enforce a contract made expressly for his or her benefit.
24
See Cal. Civ. Code § 1559. Nevertheless, the plaintiff must identify and plead a contract between
25
the defendant and a third party which was expressly made for the benefit of the plaintiff. See
26
Schauer, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 239; Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 249 F.R.D. 351, 356 (E.D. Cal.
27
2008). Plaintiffs have failed to do so here.
28
Plaintiffs identify no agreement that Google has entered into for Plaintiffs’ benefit.
63
1
Specifically, Plaintiffs plead that they “are the intended third-party beneficiaries of the implied
2
warranties and other contracts between Defendants and the retailers who sell the Phones.” CAC
3
¶ 242. Even shelving the ever-persisting issue of lumping Google with Huawei, Plaintiffs do not
4
plead that Google had contracts to sell the Nexus 6P to retailers, such as Best Buy, Newegg, and
5
Amazon. The sole agreement that Plaintiffs identify is Huawei’s Limited Warranty. Opp’n 33.
6
But Plaintiffs cannot use that warranty to bootstrap Google’s liability without an accompanying
7
allegation that Huawei’s Limited Warranty was an agreement with Google to benefit customers.
8
Because Plaintiffs have not done so, they have not pleaded sufficient facts to make use of the
9
third-party beneficiary exception.
10
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to dismiss the implied warranty of
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
merchantability claims of Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi, Christensen, Beheler, Davydov,
12
Harrison, Himes, Servodio, Poore, and Johnston with leave to amend to allege further facts about a
13
privity relationship or an agreement between Google and a third-party that is intended for the
14
benefit of these Plaintiffs.
15
iii.
Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
16
The California Plaintiffs assert a cause of action under the Song–Beverly Act, Cal. Civ.
17
Code §§ 1791.1, 1792, on behalf of the California subclass. CAC ¶¶ 284–96. As to individual
18
Plaintiffs, Google asserts that Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen’s claims should be
19
dismissed because they did not purchase their phones from Google and that Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s
20
claim should be dismissed because he has not plausibly alleged unmerchantability. Google Mot.
21
13. Google also puts forward a basis on which the claim should be dismissed that applies to all
22
three California Plaintiffs—namely, that Plaintiffs do not allege that they purchased their phones
23
in California. Id. The Court marches through each of these three arguments.
24
(1)
25
Manufacturer or Retail Seller
Google first contends that Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen’s claims fail
26
because they did not purchase from Google. The Song–Beverly Act generates an implied
27
warranty of merchantability by manufacturers and retail sellers. Cal. Civ. Code § 1792. Google
28
argues that the CAC does not establish that Google counts as either a manufacturer or retail seller
64
1
of the Nexus 6P as to Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen. Google Mot. 13–14.
Based on the CAC’s present allegations, Google is neither a “manufacturer” nor a “retail
3
seller” with respect to Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen. A “manufacturer” is “any
4
individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal relationship that manufactures,
5
assembles, or produces consumer goods.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j). At multiple places in the
6
CAC (including the section asserting the Song–Beverly Act claim), the CAC labels Huawei as the
7
“manufacturer” of the Nexus 6P. See CAC ¶¶ 165 (stating that “Huawei manufactured the
8
device”), 288 (“Huawei is a ‘manufacturer’ of the Nexus 6P smartphones within the meaning of
9
Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j).”). The CAC does not make any such allegations as to Google and does
10
not otherwise state that Google “manufactures, assembles, or produces” the Nexus 6P. Plaintiffs
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
cannot shoehorn Google into the “manufacturer” definition merely by pointing out that Google
12
and Huawei “collaborat[ed]” to create the Nexus 6P, especially when the allegation explicitly
13
singles out Huawei as the entity that “manufactured” the phone. Id. ¶ 165.
14
Nor does the CAC provide that Google is a “retail seller” as to Plaintiffs
15
Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen. A “retail seller” is “any individual, partnership, corporation,
16
association, or other legal relationship that engages in the business of selling or leasing consumer
17
goods to retail buyers.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(l). The California courts have interpreted “retail”
18
as “to sell in small quantities directly to the ultimate consumer.” Dagher v. Ford Motor Co., 190
19
Cal. Rptr. 3d 261, 269 (Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted). Although Google and Huawei both
20
generally “market and distribute the Phones” and specifically “sell the Phones to consumers
21
directly as well as through authorized retailers,” CAC ¶¶ 165, 168, Google did not sell the Nexus
22
6P to the end consumers at issue here. Rather, Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi bought from Best
23
Buy, and Plaintiff Christensen bought from Huawei. Id. ¶¶ 12, 28. Plaintiffs make no other
24
arguments for why Google falls under the definition of “retail seller.”
25
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the Song–Beverly Act
26
claims of Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen with leave to amend to allege further
27
facts about whether Google qualifies as a “manufacturer” or “retail seller.”
28
65
(2)
1
2
Merchantability
Google next challenges the sufficiency of the allegations as to the unmerchantability of
3
Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s Nexus 6P. Google Mot. 14. The implied warranty of merchantability
4
guarantees that the goods meet “a minimum level of quality.” Am. Suzuki, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 529
5
(citation omitted). The key inquiry is whether the goods are “fit[] for the ordinary purpose for
6
which such goods are used.” Mexia, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 289 (citation omitted). Under that test, an
7
alleged defect must constitute more than an inconvenience; the defect must be “so fundamental as
8
to render the product unfit for its ordinary purpose.” In re Carrier IQ, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1108; see
9
also Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 546, 549 (Ct. App. 2003) (“[A] breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability means the product did not possess even the most basic degree
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of fitness for ordinary use.”).
12
The allegations with respect to Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s Nexus 6P meet these requirements.
13
The CAC first alleges that “[d]uring his first few months of owning the Phone, [Plaintiff]
14
Gorbatchev regularly experienced incidents in which it would suddenly shut down and restart
15
without warning, sometimes on a daily basis.” CAC ¶ 20. The CAC then goes on to say that, on
16
March 17, 2017, Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s phone exhibited the Bootloop Defect. While Plaintiff
17
Gorbatchev was trying to call an Uber, his phone froze and restarted, then cycled through this
18
process for the rest of the day without ever proceeding beyond the Google logo screen. Id. ¶ 21.
19
As the CAC explains, Plaintiff “Gorbatchev’s Phone never proceeded past the Google logo screen
20
again.” Id. ¶ 24. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff Gorbatchev’s Nexus 6P
21
was unfit for ordinary use. After the Bootloop Defect manifested, Plaintiff Gorbatchev could not
22
use any of the basic functions of his phone, such as placing calls, sending texts, or using apps. Id.
23
¶ 175. Accordingly, failure to plead unmerchantability is not an appropriate basis on which to
24
dismiss the express warranty claim of Plaintiff Gorbatchev.
25
26
(3)
Location of Purchases
As discussed above with respect to Huawei, the California Plaintiffs’ Song–Beverly Act
27
claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to allege the necessary element of whether
28
the phone purchases took place in California. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion
66
1
to Dismiss the Song–Beverly Act claim with leave to amend to assert where the phone purchases
2
took place.
iv.
3
4
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
Plaintiffs’ third cause of action alleges violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, 15
5
U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., presumably on behalf of the nationwide class. CAC ¶¶ 249–67. With one
6
caveat, the parties agree that, in this case, “the claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall
7
with [the] express and implied warranty claims under state law.” Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1022. As
8
for the caveat, Plaintiffs contend that where a state-law breach of implied warranty claim
9
insufficiently alleges privity, an implied warranty claim under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
may proceed if there is an express warranty. Opp’n 35. However, Plaintiffs’ cited authority is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
inapplicable because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Google issued a written warranty that
12
complies with the requirements of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. See Szajna v. Gen. Motors
13
Corp., 503 N.E.2d 760, 769 (Ill. 1986) (“In cases where no Magnuson–Moss written warranty has
14
been given, Magnuson–Moss has no effect upon State-law privity requirements . . . .”). Therefore,
15
in this case, Plaintiffs’ claims under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act survive only if the
16
underlying state-law express or implied warranty claims do.
17
The Court has dismissed all of the express and implied warranty claims against Google.
18
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
19
claims of all Plaintiffs with leave to amend.
20
21
c.
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Claims
Plaintiffs assert a common-law claim for deceit and fraudulent concealment and fraud
22
claims under various state statutes. The Court first addresses the common-law claim, then
23
analyzes each of the remaining state statutory claims.
24
25
i.
Deceit and Fraudulent Concealment
Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for deceit and fraudulent concealment on behalf of each
26
of the twelve statewide subclasses. CAC ¶ 269. As reflected both in the CAC and Plaintiffs’
27
opposition, every state-law claim is premised on the allegation that Google “concealed and
28
suppressed material facts” regarding the Nexus 6P because Google “knew (or in the exercise of
67
1
reasonable diligence should have known) of the Defects, but failed to disclose them prior to or at
2
the time [it] marketed Phones and sold them to consumers.” Id. ¶ 270; Opp’n 50. For the reasons
3
already stated, the CAC does not sufficiently plead that Google had knowledge of the Bootloop or
4
Battery Drain Defect at the time that Plaintiffs acquired their Nexus 6Ps. Accordingly, the Court
5
GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the deceit and fraudulent concealment claims with leave to
6
amend to allege further facts in support of Google’s knowledge.
ii.
7
8
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
The California Plaintiffs bring a claim under the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1780, on behalf
of the California subclass. CAC ¶ 310. Google seeks dismissal on a procedural ground—namely,
10
the failure to submit the affidavit under § 1780(d)—and on substantive grounds—namely, failure
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
to state a claim. Google Mot. 15–18. The Court addresses these grounds in turn.
(1)
12
13
Procedural Ground
Courts must dismiss without prejudice CLRA claims that are unaccompanied by “an
14
affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county described in this
15
section as a proper place for the trial of the action.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(d). As noted above,
16
this Court requires the submission of such an affidavit. See Romero, 2015 WL 2125004, at *8.
17
Because Plaintiffs concede that no CLRA affidavit has been filed, Opp’n 50, the Court GRANTS
18
Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim with leave to file the necessary CLRA
19
affidavit.
20
21
(2)
Substantive Grounds
The CLRA proscribes “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
22
practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale . . .
23
of goods or services to any consumer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a). The CAC advances two
24
distinct theories for Google’s liability under that section. First, the CAC charges that Google
25
committed fraud by omission because it had a duty to disclose its knowledge of the defects. CAC
26
¶¶ 318–19. Second, the CAC avows that Google affirmatively misrepresented the qualities of the
27
Nexus 6P despite knowing of the defects. Id. ¶¶ 321–22. Both theories depend on Google’s
28
awareness of the defects at the time of sale, which Plaintiffs have not adequately pled.
68
1
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CLRA with leave to
2
amend to allege further facts about Google’s knowledge of the defects.
3
4
The Court also briefly addresses Google’s other arguments that neither the fraudulent
omissions theory nor the affirmative misrepresentation theory is well-pled. Google Mot. 16–17.
(a)
5
6
Fraudulent Omissions
Plaintiffs’ fraudulent omissions theory avers that “Defendants had a duty to disclose the
Defects because Huawei and Google had exclusive knowledge of the Defects prior to making sales
8
of Phones and because Defendants made partial representations about the quality of the Phones,
9
but failed to fully disclose the Defects.” CAC ¶ 319. As the Court noted earlier, “[t]o state a
10
claim for failing to disclose a defect, a party must allege . . . the existence of an unreasonable
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
safety hazard.” Williams, 851 F.3d at 1025. Plaintiffs do not offer unreasonable-safety-hazard
12
allegations specific to Google that go beyond those alleged as to Huawei. For the same reasons
13
stated with respect to Huawei, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient as to Google. Accordingly,
14
the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim to the extent it is
15
predicated on a fraudulent omissions theory with leave to amend to allege whether the defects
16
pose an unreasonable safety hazard.
17
18
(b)
Affirmative Misrepresentation
Plaintiffs’ affirmative misrepresentation theory avers that Google made false statements
19
about the Nexus 6P even though Google was aware that the phones were suffering from the
20
Bootloop and Battery Drain Defects. CAC ¶ 322. Plaintiffs point to the same three statements
21
that the Court analyzed above for Plaintiffs’ express warranty claims—namely, the “get up to
22
seven hours” statement, the “keeps you talking, texting and apping” statement, and the “keeps you
23
going” statement. Id. ¶ 321. Although Google asserts that these three statements are not
24
actionable, Google Mot. 16, the standard under the CLRA is identical to the standard for an
25
express warranty. See Azoulai, 2017 WL 1354781, at *8 (analyzing CLRA and express warranty
26
claims together). Thus, the Court’s determination that the “get up to seven hours” statement is
27
adequately specific and measurable holds here.
28
Google’s meatier—and ultimately meritorious—challenge is that Plaintiffs fail to
69
sufficiently allege that they relied on Google’s misrepresentation. Under the CLRA, a plaintiff
2
must allege that he relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations and that he suffered injury
3
as a result. See Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777, 794 (9th Cir. 2012)
4
(“[C]onsumers seeking to recover damages under the CLRA based on a fraud theory must prove
5
‘actual reliance on the misrepresentation and harm.’” (citation omitted)); Durell v. Sharp
6
Healthcare, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682, 697 (Ct. App. 2010) (concluding that complaint was properly
7
dismissed where plaintiff did not allege that he “relied on any representation by” the defendant).
8
Furthermore, when CLRA claims are premised on misleading advertising statements, the pleading
9
standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) governs and requires the plaintiff to allege “the
10
particular circumstances surrounding [the] representations.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
1120, 1126 (9th Cir. 2009). In other words, the plaintiff must “specify which statements the
12
plaintiff actually saw and relied upon.” In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litig., No. 17-CV-
13
01834-LHK, 2018 WL 288085, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018).
14
Plaintiffs do not come close to fulfilling that high burden here. The CAC does not allege
15
that any of the California Plaintiffs saw any advertising about the Nexus 6P at all, let alone that
16
they saw and relied upon Google’s “get up to seven hours” statement. CAC ¶¶ 12–37. Generally,
17
Rule 9(b) requires that a plaintiff plead “an account of the time, place, and specific content of the
18
false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.” Swartz v.
19
KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
20
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Averments of fraud must
21
be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.” (citation
22
omitted)). Plaintiffs must provide that level of detail. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s
23
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim to the extent it is predicated on an affirmative
24
misrepresentation theory with leave to amend to allege which of Google’s statements Plaintiffs
25
actually saw and relied upon.
26
27
28
iii.
California Unfair Competition & False Advertising Laws
The California Plaintiffs assert claims under the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq., and under the FAL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., on behalf of the California
70
1
subclass. CAC ¶¶ 298, 333. Google first contends that Plaintiffs cannot sustain either the UCL or
2
FAL claim because they have not shown entitlement to equitable relief. Google Mot. 20–21.
3
Google then makes arguments specific to the UCL and FAL claims. Id. at 21–24. The Court first
4
examines Google’s contention that applies to both the UCL and FAL claims, then considers the
5
arguments about each individual claim.
(1)
6
7
Entitlement to Equitable Relief
The only forms of relief that a private individual may pursue under the UCL and FAL are
8
the equitable remedies of restitution and injunctive relief. Korea Supply Co., 63 P.3d at 943
9
(UCL); Chern v. Bank of Am., 544 P.2d 1310, 1315 (Cal. 1976) (FAL). Google presses three
arguments that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled entitlement to these equitable remedies. First,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Google argues that none of the California Plaintiffs has standing to seek injunctive relief. Google
12
Mot. 21. Second, Google argues that Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen have not
13
adequately pled entitlement to restitution. Id. Third, Google argues that Plaintiffs have not shown
14
that there is no adequate remedy at law available. Id. at 20. The Court proceeds through each of
15
these arguments.
16
(a)
Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief
17
Google challenges the California Plaintiffs’ Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.
18
Google Mot. 21. After briefing on Google’s Motion to Dismiss was complete, the Ninth Circuit
19
issued a decision bearing on the question. In Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103,
20
1107 (9th Cir. 2017), the defendants marketed and sold pre-moistened wipes as suitable for
21
flushing down a toilet, but the plaintiff discovered that the products were not truly “flushable.”
22
The plaintiff brought UCL and FAL claims, which sought both restitution and an injunction. Id. at
23
1108. The district court dismissed the claims for injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiff lacked
24
standing because she was unlikely to purchase the wipes in the future. Id. at 1109.
25
The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court resolved the open question whether a “previously
26
deceived consumer who brings a false advertising claim can allege that her inability to rely on the
27
advertising in the future is an injury sufficient to grant her Article III standing to seek injunctive
28
relief.” Id. at 1113. Specifically, the court held that consumers can have standing to pursue
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
injunctive relief in at least two circumstances:
In some cases, the threat of future harm may be the consumer’s plausible
allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling
in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to. In
other cases, the threat of future harm may be the consumer’s plausible allegations
that she might purchase the product in the future, despite the fact it was once
marred by false advertising or labeling, as she may reasonably, but incorrectly,
assume the product was improved.
Id. at 1115. Under those standards, the court deemed sufficient the plaintiff’s allegations that she
wanted to purchase the defendants’ flushable wipes in the future but that she could not rely on the
defendants’ representation with any confidence. Id. at 1116.
Without the benefit of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Davidson, it will come as no
surprise that Plaintiffs’ allegations are deficient. The CAC does not fit either of the two scenarios
countenanced by the Ninth Circuit because there is no pleading that the California Plaintiffs would
like to purchase in the future but cannot trust Google’s advertising or that the California Plaintiffs
might purchase in the future on the belief that the product has been improved. See CAC ¶¶ 12–37,
297–308, 332–39. Plaintiffs’ opposition even concedes that their allegations are lacking on the
latter point. Opp’n 49. Because Davidson was unavailable at the time that Plaintiffs were drafting
their CAC and writing their opposition, they also have not presented any other theory about how
they “suffer[ed] an ‘actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical’ threat of future harm.”
873 F.3d at 1115 (quoting Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009)). In their
amended allegations, Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to make that showing.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the California Plaintiffs’
claims for injunctive relief with leave to amend to allege further facts about Plaintiffs’ nonspeculative threat of future harm.
(b)
Entitlement to Restitution
Google contends that Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen, who did not purchase
from Google, have not adequately pled entitlement to restitution because the CAC does not allege
that money or property in which they have a vested interest is in Google’s possession. Google
Mot. 21. “[I]n appropriate circumstances, the plaintiff in a UCL action may obtain restitution
72
1
from a defendant with whom the plaintiff did not deal directly.” Shersher v. Superior Court, 65
2
Cal. Rptr. 3d 634, 640 (Ct. App. 2007); see also Cty. of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency,
3
90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 41, 52 (Ct. App. 1999) (“For a benefit to be conferred, it is not essential that
4
money be paid directly to the recipient by the party seeking restitution.”). Nevertheless, in order
5
to recover from a defendant from whom the plaintiff did not purchase, the plaintiff must trace his
6
money or property to money or property within the defendant’s possession. See Shersher, 65 Cal.
7
Rptr. 3d at 641 (concluding that plaintiff who purchased product from defendant’s retailer
8
adequately alleged entitlement to restitution because defendant indirectly acquired plaintiff’s
9
money); Cheverez v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, LP, No. 15-CV-04113-PSG, 2016 WL 4771883, at
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
*3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2016).
These standards compel dismissal of Plaintiffs Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen’s
12
claims for restitution. The allegations as to Plaintiff Christensen clearly fall flat. The CAC
13
alleges that Plaintiff Christensen purchased his Nexus 6P directly from Huawei. CAC ¶ 28. The
14
CAC makes no further effort to identify how that money came into Google’s possession as a result
15
of Plaintiff Christensen’s purchase. The allegations as to Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi come
16
closer but do not warrant a different conclusion. According to the CAC, Plaintiff
17
Makcharoenwoodhi purchased his Nexus 6P from Best Buy. Id. ¶ 12. Google is alleged to have a
18
connection with Best Buy, as the CAC states that “Defendants sell the Phones to consumers . . .
19
through authorized retailers, including . . . Best Buy.” Id. ¶ 168. While it may be plausible to
20
infer that a plaintiff’s money ends up in the defendant’s possession when the plaintiff buys the
21
defendant’s product from the defendant’s retailer, see Shersher, 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 641, the waters
22
are more muddied here. In particular, by treating Google and Huawei as a single unit without
23
otherwise identifying Google’s relationship with Best Buy, the CAC obscures the relevant actor.
24
In these circumstances, it is equally plausible that Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi’s money is in
25
Huawei’s possession, not Google’s. Thus, neither Plaintiff Makcharoenwoodhi nor Plaintiff
26
Christensen has adequately pled entitlement to restitution.
27
28
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Makcharoenwoodhi and Christensen’s claims for restitution with leave to amend to allege further
73
1
2
3
facts about how their money came into Google’s possession.
(c)
Adequate Remedy at Law
Google’s final, and broadest, contention is that Plaintiffs cannot seek equitable remedies
4
because they have available an adequate remedy at law—namely, compensatory damages for the
5
same alleged conduct. Google Mot. 20. Of course, it is axiomatic that a plaintiff seeking
6
equitable relief must establish that he has no adequate legal remedy. Philpott v. Superior Court,
7
36 P.2d 635, 638 (Cal. 1934); Prudential Home Mortg. Co. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d
8
566, 573 (Ct. App. 1998) (applying these fundamental equitable principles in the context of a UCL
9
claim). Although the California Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are not necessarily doomed
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
to fail, the Court concludes that dismissal is proper at this juncture.
In addition to retrospective relief for injuries already suffered, Plaintiffs seek to “enjoin
12
[Google] from continuing [its] unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practices.” CAC ¶ 308. That
13
injunctive relief is asserted on behalf of the class and, if granted, would accrue to the benefit of the
14
public at large. See id. ¶¶ 208(h) (requesting injunctive relief for Plaintiffs and class members),
15
212 (“Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and
16
Class members, making final injunctive relief . . . appropriate with respect to the Class as a
17
whole.”). In this way, the injunctive relief could provide a remedy above and beyond a legal
18
award of damages. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17203 (allowing plaintiff to pursue
19
representative claims for injunctive relief on behalf of similarly situated individuals), 17205
20
(noting that UCL remedies “are cumulative . . . to the remedies or penalties available under all
21
other laws of this state”). However, a plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief on behalf of the public
22
unless he is individually entitled to such relief. See Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037,
23
1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“Unless the named plaintiffs are themselves entitled to seek
24
injunctive relief, they may not represent a class seeking that relief.”); Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No.
25
10-CV-05619-SC, 2011 WL 2149095, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). Because the Court has
26
presently determined that the California Plaintiffs have not adequately pled standing to seek
27
injunctive relief, their prayer for injunctive relief on behalf of the entire class must also fail.
28
Accordingly, the Court the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the California
74
1
Plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL claims with leave to amend to allege further facts about Plaintiffs’
2
standing to seek injunctive relief.
(2)
3
4
UCL
Having considered the arguments applicable to both the UCL and FAL claims, the Court
5
next addresses the UCL claim. As noted above, the UCL provides three distinct grounds for
6
liability: a business practice cannot be (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. See Cal. Bus. &
7
Prof. Code § 17200; Pastoria, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 153. Plaintiffs contend that Google’s conduct has
8
violated all three prongs. CAC ¶¶ 300–01, 303. Google, however, argues that the CAC does not
9
adequately allege that its conduct was unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. Google Mot. 21–24.
(a)
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Unlawful Business Act or Practice
Plaintiffs predicate their claim under the “unlawful” prong on Google’s alleged violations
12
of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, the Song–Beverly Act, the CLRA, and the FAL and on
13
Google’s breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
14
CAC ¶ 300. The UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that
15
the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1140 (quoting
16
Cel-Tech Commc’ns, 973 P.2d at 539–40). Because the Court concludes that the California
17
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against Google under any of these statutes or causes of action,
18
they have not stated a claim against Google for violation of the UCL “unlawful” prong.
19
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the
20
unlawful prong with leave to amend.
21
(b)
Unfair Business Act or Practice
22
The “unfair” prong of the UCL creates a cause of action that is not limited to business
23
practices that are proscribed by some other law. Korea Supply Co., 63 P.3d at 943. As noted
24
above, courts have not coalesced around one test for measuring what is “unfair” under the UCL.
25
Lozano, 504 F.3d at 735–36. Plaintiffs advocate for the South Bay balancing test or the FTC Act
26
section 5 test. Opp’n 39. Google contends that Plaintiffs’ claim fails under either test. Google
27
Mot. 22; see also Google Reply 14 (“[N]one of the five acts [California] Plaintiffs identify as the
28
basis for the ‘unfair’ claim in the CAC are ‘unfair’ under either the FTC Act Section 5 test or the
75
1
balancing test . . . .”).
Like with Huawei, Plaintiffs’ allegation that Google has engaged in a “practice of selling
2
3
defective phones without providing an adequate remedy to cure the Defects,” CAC ¶ 302, fails
4
under any test. Plaintiffs point to five aspects of “Defendants” Google and Huawei’s conduct: (1)
5
knowingly sold defective phones, (2) refused to repair or replace phones when the defects
6
manifested outside the warranty period, (3) avoided providing warranty service by blaming minor
7
cosmetic issues, (4) had long wait periods on warranty claims, and (5) provided replacement
8
phones that were also defective. Id. ¶ 301. Again, due to the melding of Google and Huawei
9
under the heading of “Defendants,” the Court must strive to unravel which actions the CAC
10
attributes solely to Google.10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
For the same reasons discussed with respect to Huawei, grounds (1) and (2)—alleging
12
knowledge of the defects and unwillingness to fix out-of-warranty phones—are unsustainable.
13
Ground (3) is even weaker with respect to Google. No California Plaintiff alleges that Google
14
denied warranty coverage by pointing to cosmetic damage. CAC ¶¶ 12–37. Although
15
Pennsylvania Plaintiff Leone pleads that Google rejected warranty coverage based on “screen
16
scratches, dents in the metal frame, [and] cracked rear glass,” id. ¶¶ 133–34, that allegation—even
17
if relevant for a California claim under California law—does not show that Google’s practice was
18
to turn down warranty coverage on these grounds. Ground (4) is inapplicable to Google because
19
the allegations about long wait times for warranty claims all relate to Huawei. See id. ¶¶ 65, 85,
20
122, 156. Finally, the CAC accuses Google of providing some non-California Plaintiffs with
21
defective replacement phones. Id. ¶¶ 49, 75, 113–14, 136. No California Plaintiff was allegedly
22
affected by this conduct, and Plaintiffs provide no argument that such an inference is reasonable
23
based on the allegations. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not identify any authority holding that a
24
defendant who provides a defective product on more than one occasion has committed an unfair
25
business practice. Hence, none of Plaintiffs’ five asserted aspects of Google’s conduct withstands
26
scrutiny at the motion to dismiss stage.
27
10
28
In the future, if Plaintiffs combine the allegations against Google and Huawei, the Court will not
try to unwind them in the same fashion but will simply dismiss.
76
1
Plaintiffs’ argument that Google’s conduct violates the Song–Beverly Act’s policy of
2
preventing unmerchantable products from reaching consumers, id. ¶ 301, fares no better. As noted
3
with respect to Huawei, Plaintiffs’ conception of the Song–Beverly Act’s purpose improperly
4
extends beyond California state lines. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1792. Plaintiffs therefore cannot rely
5
on the Song–Beverly Act’s purpose without accompanying allegations about where the California
6
Plaintiffs purchased their phones.
7
8
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim
under the unfair prong with leave to amend to allege relevant facts.
(c)
9
10
Fraudulent Business Act or Practice
The analysis with respect to Google and Huawei under the UCL fraud prong is identical
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
because the CAC depends on the same three fraudulent acts for both companies. See CAC ¶ 303.
12
As Plaintiffs’ opposition admits, Opp’n 40, all three acts take as a given Google’s knowledge of
13
the defects at the time of sale to the California Plaintiffs. The Court has previously explained at
14
length that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Google had knowledge of the defects when
15
the California Plaintiffs purchased their phones. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s
16
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the fraud prong with leave to amend to allege that
17
Google had knowledge of the defects at the time that the California Plaintiffs purchased their
18
phones.
19
20
(2)
False Advertising Law
The disposition on Plaintiffs’ FAL claim requires little explanation because the analysis is
21
substantively identical to that under the UCL fraud prong. Indeed, this Court and other courts in
22
this district have treated FAL claims together with the UCL fraud prong, Singh v. Google Inc., No.
23
16-CV-03734-BLF, 2017 WL 2404986, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017); Chacanaca v. Quaker
24
Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1124–26 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and both Google and Plaintiffs
25
recommend following that approach here, Google Mot. 23; Opp’n 41. Because the allegations
26
underlying the FAL claim are also contingent on Google’s knowledge of the Nexus 6P’s defects,
27
see CAC ¶ 335, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
28
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAL claim with leave to
77
1
amend to allege that Google had knowledge of the defects at the time that the California Plaintiffs
2
purchased their phones.
iv.
3
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act
Indiana Plaintiff Beheler asserts a claim under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act
4
5
(“IDCSA”), Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq., on behalf of the Indiana subclass. CAC ¶¶ 384–96.
6
Under the IDCSA, “[a] person relying upon an . . . incurable deceptive act may bring an action for
7
the damages actually suffered as a consumer as a result of the deceptive act.” Ind. Code Ann.
8
§ 24-5-0.5-4(a). The IDCSA in turn defines “incurable deceptive act” as “a deceptive act done by
9
a supplier as part of a scheme, artifice, or device with intent to defraud or mislead.” Id. § 24-50.5-2(a)(8). The CAC bases the IDCSA claim on Google’s alleged misrepresentation that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Nexus 6P has a “high-performing batter[y]” that will keep consumers “talking, texting, and apping
12
into the night.” CAC ¶¶ 390, 395.
Plaintiffs do not challenge that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard applies, but
13
14
instead argue that their allegations satisfy that standard. Opp’n 54–55. Plaintiffs are incorrect.
15
The CAC states that “[t]he Nexus 6P’s purportedly long battery life factored heavily into
16
[Plaintiff] Beheler’s decision to purchase this Phone,” CAC ¶ 59, but does not indicate whether
17
Plaintiff Beheler received this information from Google’s advertising or came upon it by some
18
other means, such as word of mouth from a friend or a technical review written by another
19
company. This is insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ contention that Plaintiff Beheler “saw and
20
relied upon Google’s advertising of long battery life.” Opp’n 55. Accordingly, the Court
21
GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Beheler’s IDCSA claim with leave to amend to
22
specify the advertisements and the content of the advertisements that Plaintiff Beheler relied upon
23
in purchasing his Nexus 6P.11
24
25
11
26
27
28
The Court need not address Google’s separate argument about Plaintiff Beheler’s failure to give
Google written notice. Google Mot. 25. As Google indicated in its Motion to Dismiss, that
argument applies only to the extent that Plaintiff Beheler alleges an “uncured” deceptive act, as
opposed to an “incurable” deceptive act. Id. In their opposition, Plaintiffs make clear that
Plaintiff Beheler pleads an “incurable” deceptive act, as reflected in paragraph 395 of the CAC.
Opp’n 55.
78
1
2
v.
New York General Business Law
New York Plaintiff Davydov asserts claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350 on
3
behalf of the New York subclass. CAC ¶¶ 415–32. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 makes unlawful
4
“[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,” while N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350
5
prohibits “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any business.” Google contends that the claims
6
under §§ 349 and 350 should be dismissed for failure to plead causation. Google Mot. 25.
7
Because both sections include the element of causation, a plaintiff’s claim is not sufficiently pled
8
if he does not “state in his complaint that he has seen the misleading statements of which he
9
complains before he came into possession of the products he purchased.” Goldemberg v. Johnson
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
& Johnson Consumer Cos, 8 F. Supp. 3d 467, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Based on the CAC’s lumping together of Google and Huawei, Plaintiff Davydov’s
12
allegations here do not clear that hurdle. To be sure, other cases have allowed claims under
13
§§ 349 and 350 to proceed past a motion to dismiss on relatively thin allegations. For example, in
14
Dash v. Seagate Technology (U.S.) Holdings, Inc., the court concluded that there was a reasonable
15
inference that the plaintiff purchased the product at issue as a result of seeing the misleading
16
statements where the plaintiff “describe[d] in detail the allegedly misleading and deceptive
17
statements contained on the [product’s] packaging upon which he relied in purchasing the
18
product.” 27 F. Supp. 3d 357, 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). The court drew the same inference in
19
Goldemberg where the plaintiff “describe[d] in particular the allegedly misleading advertising and
20
other statements” and alleged that the defendant’s “false, misleading, and deceptive
21
misrepresentations . . . ha[d] already deceived and misled Plaintiff.” 8 F. Supp. 3d at 480.
22
The allegations here superficially fit that mold. The CAC first details the allegedly
23
misleading statements by Google. CAC ¶ 227. Then, the CAC alleges that “[i]n purchasing
24
Phones, [Plaintiff] Davydov . . . relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of Defendants
25
with respect to the quality, functionality, and performance of the Phones” and that Plaintiff
26
Davydov would not have purchased the phone in the absence of those misrepresentations. Id.
27
¶ 430. The problem is that, by referring to the Google and Huawei together without denoting
28
particular statements, there is no assurance that Plaintiff Davydov relied on Google’s allegedly
79
1
misleading statements in purchasing his Nexus 6P. Without more, it is not plausible that Plaintiff
2
Davydov saw every relevant misrepresentation made by Google. Accordingly, the Court
3
GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Davydov’s N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350
4
claims with leave to amend to assert whether he viewed Google’s statements before he purchased
5
his phone.
6
7
vi.
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
North Carolina Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes assert a claim under the North Carolina
8
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NCUDTPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq., on
9
behalf of the North Carolina subclass. CAC ¶¶ 433–43. To state a claim under the NCUDTPA, a
plaintiff must plead that “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the
12
plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (N.C. 2001); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.
13
§§ 75-1.1(a) (declaring unlawful “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce”),
14
75-16 (creating private right of action for persons “injured by reason of any [unfair or deceptive]
15
act”). The CAC alleges that Google engaged in “unfair” and “deceptive” acts. First, it states that
16
Google’s acts were “unfair” because “Defendants knowingly sold [Plaintiff] Harrison, [Plaintiff]
17
Himes, and North Carolina Subclass members Phones with the Defects, refused to honor
18
warranties, required consumers to wait several weeks to several months on warranty claims, and
19
replaced Phones under warranty with other defective Phones.” CAC ¶ 437. Second, the CAC also
20
goes on to say that Google’s acts are “deceptive” because Google made misrepresentations about
21
the Nexus 6P in advertising. Id. ¶ 439. Neither is well-pled.
22
As to “unfair” acts, the alleged actions pertain to Huawei and appear to include Google
23
only by the misleading use of the cover term “Defendants.” Not only do the CAC’s allegations
24
fail to plausibly plead that Google had knowledge at the time of sale, but the CAC admits that
25
Google did not sell to Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes at all—they purchased their phones from
26
Amazon and Best Buy, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 91, 99. The rest of the allegations relate to warranty
27
problems, but neither Plaintiff Harrison nor Plaintiff Himes submitted a warranty claim to Google.
28
Rather, Plaintiff Harrison “called Huawei to make a warranty claim,” id. ¶ 94, and Plaintiff Himes
80
1
2
made no warranty claim at all, despite contacting both Google and Huawei, id. ¶¶ 102–04.
As to “deceptive” acts, the CAC looks to Google’s advertising statements. The North
3
Carolina Supreme Court has instructed that “a claim under section 75-1.1 stemming from an
4
alleged misrepresentation does indeed require a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on the
5
misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.” Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N.
6
Va., 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (N.C. 2013). For essentially the same reasons discussed with respect to
7
their breach of express warranty claims, Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes have both failed to
8
adequately plead reliance on Google’s advertising statements.
9
10
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the NCUDTPA claim of
Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes with leave to amend to allege further facts.
vii.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Ohio Plaintiff Servodio asserts a claim under the ODTPA on behalf of the Ohio subclass.
13
CAC ¶¶ 461–75. As discussed above with respect to Huawei, this claim must be dismissed
14
without leave to amend because, as a legal matter, consumers lack standing to sue under the
15
ODTPA. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion
16
to Dismiss the ODTPA claim.
viii.
17
18
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
Ohio Plaintiff Servodio asserts a claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
19
(“OCSPA”), Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01 et seq., on behalf of the Ohio subclass. CAC ¶¶ 476–87.
20
The OCSPA provides a private right of action to consumers for “unfair or deceptive act[s] or
21
practice[s] in connection with a consumer transaction.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.02(A),
22
1345.09(A). Nevertheless, “a consumer may qualify for class-action certification under [the
23
OCSPA] only if the defendant’s alleged violation of the Act is substantially similar to an act or
24
practice previously declared to be deceptive by” a rule adopted by the Attorney General or an
25
Ohio court decision holding such deceptive conduct unlawful. Marrone v. Philip Morris USA,
26
Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31, 33 (Ohio 2006). “Cases that involve industries and conduct very different
27
from the defendant’s do not provide meaningful notice of specific acts or practices that violate the
28
[OCSPA].” Id. at 36.
81
Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that Google was put on notice by an Ohio court
2
decision. The bare allegation that “Defendants acted in the face of prior notice that their conduct
3
was deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable” does not satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden. CAC ¶ 482. More
4
importantly, Plaintiffs do not identify any cases where, for example, a court has held that selling a
5
defective product constitutes a deceptive act under the OCSPA. Rather, as the CAC admits, the
6
cases cited therein stand for the proposition that “failing to honor express and implied warranties
7
violates the OCSPA.” Id. ¶ 483 (citing Nee v. State Indus., Inc., 3 N.E.3d 1290, 1306 (Ohio Ct.
8
App. 2013); Brown v. Decorator Carpets of Canton, Inc., 1979 WL 185083, at *2 (Ohio Ct. Com.
9
Pl. Nov. 5, 1979); and Mason v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2005 WL 1995087 at *5 (Ohio Ct.
10
App. Aug. 18, 2005)). Given that Plaintiffs have not pled that Google failed to honor Plaintiff
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Servodio’s warranty, CAC ¶¶ 119–27, or that Google breached any express or implied warranty at
12
all, these cases do not provide meaningful notice that Google’s alleged acts and practices violate
13
the OCSPA.
14
Although the Court agrees with Google on the substance of its argument, the Court parts
15
ways with Google as to the remedy. Google suggests that dismissal of Plaintiff Servodio’s
16
OCSPA claim is appropriate. Google Mot. 27. But the cases do not support that view. The
17
principal authority on which Google relies, the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Marrone,
18
concerns the prerequisites for “a consumer [to] qualify for class-action certification under [the
19
OCSPA].” 850 N.E.2d at 33. Similarly, Google’s district court case states that class action claims
20
under the OCSPA may be dismissed at the pleadings stage. See Gascho v. Glob. Fitness
21
Holdings, LLC, 863 F. Supp. 2d 677, 693 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Because Google has identified no
22
other ground on which to dismiss Plaintiff Servodio’s individual OCSPA claim, that claim will not
23
be dismissed.
24
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Servodio’s
25
OCSPA class claims with leave to amend to allege further facts about whether Google was on
26
notice that its conduct violated the OCSPA, but DENIES Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
27
Servodio’s individual OCSPA claim.
28
82
ix.
1
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
2
Texas Plaintiff Poore asserts a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
3
(“TDTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq., on behalf of the Texas subclass. CAC
4
¶¶ 501–17. A consumer may bring an action under the TDTPA when the defendant employs a
5
deceptive act or practice enumerated in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b) that is a “producing
6
cause” of the consumer’s economic damages. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50(a)(1). Although
7
the CAC lists violations of multiple subsections of § 17.46(b), CAC ¶ 509, Plaintiffs’ opposition
8
confirms that its claim is that Google ran afoul of § 17.46(b)(24), Opp’n 53. That subsection
9
proscribes “failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the
time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information
12
been disclosed.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(24).
13
With the Plaintiffs’ claim limited to this subsection, the TDTPA claim fails for familiar
14
reasons. Google cannot violate § 17.46(b)(24) unless Google “fail[ed] to disclose information . . .
15
which was known at the time of the transaction.” As even the most cursory reader will have
16
gleaned by this point, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Google had knowledge of the
17
defects at the time that Plaintiff Poore purchased his Nexus 6P. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ allegations
18
do not establish that Plaintiff Poore is entitled to relief on the TDTPA claim.
19
Google’s fallback argument that Plaintiff Poore did not provide the required pre-suit
20
notice, Google Mot. 28, is unavailing. Google appears to have overlooked Plaintiffs’ allegation
21
that “[o]n or about April 19, 2017, [Plaintiff] Poore notified Defendants of the damage and Defect
22
in his Phone in satisfaction of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.505.” CAC ¶ 517. Google concedes
23
this point in its reply. Google Reply 18.
24
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Poore’s TDTPA
25
claim with leave to amend to allege that Google had knowledge of the defects at the time that he
26
purchased his phone.
27
28
x.
Washington Consumer Protection Act
Washington Plaintiff Johnston asserts a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection
83
1
Act (“WCPA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86 et. seq., on behalf of the Washington subclass. CAC
2
¶¶ 518–35. The WCPA authorizes “[a]ny person who is injured in his or her business or property
3
by a violation of [the WCPA] . . . [to] bring a civil action . . . to enjoin further violations [or] to
4
recover the actual damages sustained by him or her.” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86.090. One
5
such violation occurs when a defendant commits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
6
conduct of any trade or commerce.” Id. § 19.86.020.
7
The CAC alleges that Google engaged in “unfair” and “deceptive” acts in nearly the same
8
fashion as the now-dismissed NCUDTPA claim. Plaintiff Johnston’s WCPA claim falters on the
9
same grounds. First, the CAC states that Google’s acts were “unfair” because “Defendants
knowingly sold [Plaintiff] Johnston and Washington Subclass members Phones with the Defects,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
refused to honor warranties, required consumers to wait several weeks to several months on
12
warranty claims, and replaced Phones under warranty with other defective Phones.” CAC ¶ 522.
13
Google did not do any of those things with respect to Plaintiff Johnston, who bought his Nexus 6P
14
from Best Buy and did not submit a warranty claim to Google. Id. ¶¶ 152–59. Second, the CAC
15
states that Google’s acts are “deceptive” because Google made misrepresentations about the
16
Nexus 6P in advertising. Id. ¶ 524. Like with his breach of express warranty claim, Plaintiff
17
Johnston has failed to adequately identify which Google advertisements he saw.
18
19
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Johnston’s WCPA
claim with leave to amend to allege further facts.
d.
20
21
Unjust Enrichment Claim
Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for unjust enrichment. CAC ¶¶ 278–83. As discussed
22
above with respect to Huawei, although a claim alleging unjust enrichment may state a claim for
23
relief as a quasi-contract claim for restitution, Romero, 2015 WL 2125004, at *9, Plaintiffs’ claim
24
must be dismissed for “failure to allege which state law governs,” Romero, 2016 WL 469370, at
25
*12. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss the unjust enrichment claim
26
with leave to amend to assert which state law applies.
27
C.
Motions to Strike
28
Huawei and Google both move to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations under Federal Rule of
84
1
Civil Procedure 12(f). Huawei Mot. 26–28; Google Mot. 29. “There is a split in this District as to
2
whether a motion to strike class action allegations may be entertained at the motion to dismiss
3
stage.” Ogola v. Chevron Corp., No. 14-CV-00173-SC, 2014 WL 4145408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
4
21, 2014). Even courts that have been willing to entertain such a motion early in the proceedings
5
“have applied a very strict standard to motions to strike class allegations on the pleadings.” Id.
6
“Only if the court is convinced that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that
7
under no set of circumstances could the claim or defense succeed may the allegations be stricken.”
8
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Huawei and Google contend that the putative nationwide class and the statewide
9
subclasses are facially overbroad because they include individuals who never experienced
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
problems with their Nexus 6Ps. Huawei Mot. 26–27; Google Mot. 29. Moreover, Huawei and
12
Google assert that a class action will be unmanageable because the suit requires adjudicating
13
various claims under differing state laws and resolving individualized inquiries. Huawei Mot. 27–
14
28; Google Mot. 29.
Although these concerns are not without merit, Huawei’s and Google’s arguments are
15
16
more appropriately addressed at a later stage of the proceedings when the issues have been more
17
fully developed and sharpened. At the hearing, the Court indicated its inclination to defer these
18
issues to the class certification stage. The Court remains convinced that it would be premature to
19
resolve the issues at the pleading stage. See Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc v. E.I. DuPont De
20
Nemours & Co., No. 13-CV-01180-BLF, 2015 WL 4755335, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Huawei’s and Google’s motions to strike class allegations
21
22
without prejudice to raising the arguments presented in those motions at a later stage of the
23
proceedings.
24
25
IV.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Huawei’s and Google’s
26
Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART, GRANTED
27
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, with respect
28
to Huawei, the Court rules as follows:
85
1
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
2
express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Gorbatchev, Christensen, Martorello, Tran, Berry,
3
Davydov, Harrison, Himes, Jones, Leone, and Poore and DENIES Huawei’s Motion to
4
Dismiss the express warranty claims of all remaining Plaintiffs.
5
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
6
implied warranty claims of Plaintiffs Berry and Poore and DENIES Huawei’s Motion to
7
Dismiss the implied warranty claims of all remaining Plaintiffs.
8
California Plaintiffs’ Song–Beverly Act claim.
9
10
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claims of Plaintiffs Berry and Poore and DENIES
12
Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claims of all remaining
13
Plaintiffs.
14
fraud claims to the extent they are based on a fraudulent omissions theory.
15
16
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
California Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim.
17
18
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
19
California Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the unfair and fraudulent prongs and DENIES
20
Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the California Plaintiffs’ UCL claim under the unlawful
21
prong.
22
California Plaintiffs’ FAL claim.
23
24
27
28
The Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss Ohio
Plaintiff Servodio’s ODTPA claim.
25
26
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss the unjust
enrichment claims of all Plaintiffs.
Specifically, with respect to Google, the Court rules as follows:
86
1
warranty claims of all Plaintiffs.
2
3
United States District Court
Northern District of California
28
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss New York
Plaintiff Davydov’s claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350.
26
27
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Michigan
Plaintiff Berry’s MCPA claim.
24
25
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Indiana
Plaintiff Beheler’s IDCSA claim.
22
23
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Illinois
Plaintiff Tran’s ICFDBPA and IUDTPA claims.
20
21
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Florida
Plaintiff Martorello’s FDUTPA claim.
18
19
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
California Plaintiffs’ FAL claim.
16
17
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
California Plaintiffs’ UCL claim.
14
15
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
California Plaintiffs’ CLRA claim.
12
13
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the deceit
and fraudulent concealment claims of all Plaintiffs.
10
11
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claims of all Plaintiffs.
8
9
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
California Plaintiffs’ Song–Beverly Act claim.
6
7
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the
implied warranty claims of all Plaintiffs.
4
5
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the express
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss North
Carolina Plaintiffs Harrison and Himes’s NCUDTPA claims.
87
1
Dakota Plaintiff Jones’s NDCFA claim.
2
3
The Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Ohio
Plaintiff Servodio’s ODTPA claim.
4
5
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss North
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Ohio
6
Plaintiff Servodio’s OCSPA class claims and DENIES Google’s Motion to Dismiss Ohio
7
Plaintiff Servodio’s individual OCSPA claim.
8
Pennsylvania Plaintiff Leone’s PUTPCPL claim.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
15
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss
Washington Plaintiff Johnston’s WCPA claim.
13
14
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss Texas
Plaintiff Poore’s TDTPA claim.
11
12
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss
The Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Google’s Motion to Dismiss the unjust
enrichment claims of all Plaintiffs.
16
Finally, with respect to Huawei and Google, the Court DENIES their motions to strike Plaintiffs’
17
class allegations.
18
An amended complaint shall be filed on or before June 8, 2018. Plaintiffs may request
19
additional time, if needed, to accommodate the jurisdictional discovery schedule set forth in a
20
separate order.
21
22
23
24
Dated: March 5, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
88
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?