Almeida
Almeida v. Apple, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NESTOR ALMEIDA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-07109-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
APPLE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendant.
The motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.1 The plaintiffs have conceded their warranty claims, and their remaining claims are plagued with deficiencies. Preliminarily, the plaintiffs have not specified which state’s law applies to their common- law claims, and both parties have cited only California caselaw in discussing other states’ consumer protection laws. Because the parties appear to have tacitly agreed that those claims are governed by the same principles as the California claims, the Court will adjudicate them under California caselaw. See In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, 926 F.3d 539, 561 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). The one exception is the unjust enrichment claim, which the plaintiffs appear to consider under different states’ laws in their opposition brief. The plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are dismissed. The complaint does not attempt to allege that the plaintiffs lack an adequate…