Rutter
Rutter v. Apple Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM RUTTER, et al., Case No. 21-cv-04077-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 58 10 APPLE INC., 11 Defendant.
12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third 14 Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 58. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without 15 oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons 16 discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 6, 2022. Dkt. 19 No. 37 (“MTD FAC Order”).1 Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on May 27, 20 2022, Dkt. No. 38, which the Court dismissed on May 5, 2023. Dkt. No. 51 (“MTD SAC Order”). 21 Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on May 25, 2023, bringing claims under the 22 California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and 23 …