Smith v. Apple, Inc.

Background

This proposed class action concerns purchasers of Apple Watches. The plaintiffs allege that First Generation, Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches contain an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety hazard. According to the allegations, watch batteries can suddenly swell, causing the screen to detach, crack, or shatter. The resulting sharp edges may cause injuries, and the watch may stop working.

The plaintiffs assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, various state laws concerning fraud by omission, and consumer-protection laws in New York, Texas, and Florida. They seek to represent a nationwide class, an internet subclass, and state-specific classes.

Motion to Amend

The plaintiffs moved for leave—permission from the court—to file a third amended complaint and to modify the case-management schedule. They said the proposed amendment would not add or change legal claims or parties. Instead, it would revise their description of the alleged defect and Apple’s knowledge based on discovery and recent inspections of the named plaintiffs’ watches.

Because the deadline for amending pleadings had expired, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires “good cause” to change a scheduling order. The court explained that this standard focuses mainly on the moving party’s diligence. The court also noted that, after finding good cause, it could deny amendment if the proposed amendment would be futile.

The court found good cause and diligence. It noted that the amendment deadline had been unreasonably early in hindsight, that Apple had produced more than one million pages of documents after the deadline, and that the parties’ joint inspection and testing of the batteries did not conclude until August 2023. The plaintiffs sought leave to amend promptly after the testing concluded. The court also found that the plaintiffs were conforming their factual allegations to the evidence rather than adding defendants or products.

Apple argued that amendment would prejudice it and that some claims for equitable relief were barred or untimely. The court rejected the prejudice argument under the circumstances. It also stated that an opposition to a motion for leave to amend was not the proper procedure for raising a failure-to-state-a-claim argument under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately alleges a legally valid claim.

Case-Management Schedule

Because the court granted leave to amend, it concluded that the case-management schedule would need to be modified. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint stipulation and proposed amended schedule through class certification within one week. If they could not agree, they had to submit separate proposed schedules without argument, and the court would impose a schedule.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file that complaint by the close of business on November 1, 2023. The court also stated that Apple’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was TERMINATED AS MOOT because the court had granted leave to file the third amended complaint.