Day v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint concerning alleged performance problems with an AMD product. They relied in part on allegations that AMD conducted testing and received information through Microsoft and AMD support forums. They also brought misrepresentation claims and equitable claims, which seek relief such as an injunction or other non-monetary remedies.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the new testing allegations were too vague about when the testing occurred. Without that timing, the court could not reasonably infer that AMD knew about the alleged defect before selling the product to the plaintiffs.

The allegations about online complaints were also insufficient. They did not identify when the complaints were made or what they said. The complaint referred generally to message-board posts beginning in late 2018 but quoted none of them. The specific complaints it did quote were either undated or dated after the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased the product. Because the plaintiffs did not adequately allege pre-sale knowledge, the court held that their claims based on AMD’s alleged duty to disclose had to be dismissed.

The court also rejected the misrepresentation claims. It found that the new complaint relied on the same statements the court had previously determined were non-actionable promotional statements, sometimes called puffery. The court further held that the complaint did not plead reliance with the required particularity, meaning enough specific facts to support the allegation.

Finally, the court held that the equitable claims had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not properly allege that they lacked an adequate legal remedy. The court noted that the allegations appeared capable of supporting a breach-of-implied-warranty claim, but the plaintiffs had dropped that claim. The plaintiffs did not convincingly explain why monetary damages potentially available under such a claim would not adequately compensate them. The court also rejected the assertion that the plaintiffs could recover AMD’s profits as non-restitutionary disgorgement under an unjust-enrichment theory, stating that the alleged facts did not support recovery beyond the price premium paid.

Disposition

The court granted AMD’s motion to dismiss. It stated that dismissal with prejudice—ending the case without another opportunity to amend—would be reasonable, but granted the plaintiffs one last opportunity to amend in caution. Any amended complaint was due within 21 days of the order, and AMD’s response was due 14 days after the amended complaint was filed. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.