Cohen v. Apple Inc.

Background

This proposed class action asserts claims for negligence, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment. Apple moved to dismiss the complaint.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

A motion to dismiss generally tests whether the complaint contains enough factual matter to state a plausible claim, and courts ordinarily do not consider material outside the pleadings. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), however, when a court considers outside material that it does not exclude, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment. The parties must receive a reasonable opportunity to present material relevant to that motion, including reasonable discovery.

The court concluded that Apple’s motion presented a large amount of material outside the pleadings, including purported factual statements and findings of the Commission. The court therefore converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.

Need for Discovery

The court found that the motion could not be decided on the existing record. It identified a factual dispute about how two laboratories that were described as certified by the Commission reached opposite conclusions when applying the same guidelines to identical Apple iPhones. The court allowed discovery into the laboratories’ testing methods, their comparison with the Commission’s testing, and their interpretation of testing-distance requirements.

The court also discussed the test-separation distance used for the phones. It stated that the Commission’s guidance requires the selected distance to be explained and justified in the Specific Absorption Rate report, and that Apple had provided the Commission’s certification but not the report or documents showing how the test distance was determined. The court found this factual dispute important and requiring further discovery.

Potential Effect of Federal Standards

The court stated that it was inclined to dismiss all claims on preemption grounds if the Apple products ultimately satisfied the Commission’s standard. Conversely, if the products did not meet the Commission’s standards, the court stated that it was inclined to allow all claims to proceed. The court emphasized that this was not a final determination and that discovery was needed regarding both compliance and how the Commission’s guidance should be implemented.

Disposition

The court stated that the class-certification issues were not ready for decision. It denied Apple’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal under Rule 56, the summary-judgment rule, after adequate discovery. The plaintiffs could then cross-move if they believed the record supported a decision in their favor. The order was dated February 10, 2020, and signed by William Alsup, United States District Judge.