Frenzel

Frenzel v. Aliphcom

Good Law
76 F. Supp. 3d 999·2014 WL 7387150·85 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 482·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177880
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 29, 2014Case No. 14-cv-03587-WHOCalifornia9,650 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Robert Frenzel brings this putative class action against defendant Aliph-Com dba Jawbone (“Jawbone”), alleging that he was fraudulently induced to purchase a Jawbone UP fitness-tracker wristband by misrepresentations regarding the product’s battery life and general functionality. ' Jawbone moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Frenzel’s claims are precluded by California’s choice-of-law rules and, in addition, are not adequately alleged. I agree on both counts and will GRANT the motion.

BACKGROUND

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are alleged in Fren-zel’s complaint and are presumed true for the purposes of this motion. Jawbone is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Compl. ¶ 8 (Dkt. No. 1). It markets and sells Jawbone UP, a fitness-tracker wristband that contains an accelerometer designed to track the user’s daily movements and sleep patterns. Users can connect, or “sync,” their Jawbone UP device to a mobile application that helps them set personal exercise and diet goals, monitor their progress, and collaborate with other…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.