In re Seagate Technology LLC Litigation
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Spero, J.
*779 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs 1 bring this putative class action against Defendant Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”), alleging that Seagate misrepresented certain hard drives and delivered defective drives to consumers. Seagate moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim.' The Court, the Honorable Ronald Whyte presiding, 'heard argunieiit on October 7, 2016. Following Judge Whyte’s retirement, this case was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes upon consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §' 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, Seagate’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs may amend their complaint to address the deficiencies identified below no later than March 3, 2017.
II. BACKGROUND
Seagate manufactures and distributes hard drives. 2d Consolidated Am.. Compl. (“SCAC,” dkt. 62) ¶ 25. 2 Seagate released the Seagate Barracuda 3TB internal hard drive, model number ST3000DM001, in October of 2011. Id. ¶ 2. Seagate subsequently released two external 3TB . hard drives-r-the Backup Plus 3TB and Go-Flex3TB—that…