Donohue v. Apple, Inc. (2012)

Id.; Donohue, supra, 871 F.Supp.2d at 921-22 , 2012 WL 1657119, at *6 (allowing plaintiff to represent a class of persons who purchased different but similar products reasoning that “questions of whether common issues predominate and whether plaintiff can adequately represent absent class members, [are] issues that are better resolved at the class certification stage.”).

Instead, unjust enrichment “describe[s] the theory underlying a claim that a defendant has been unjustly conferred a benefit ’through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.” Id (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Trazo v. Nestle USA Inc., 113 F.Supp.3d 1047 (N.D.Cal.2015) (holding that claim alleging that the defendant’s misleading labeling enriched the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff stated a claim for quasi-contract seeking an unjust enrichme…

Thus, in Donohue v. Apple, ■ Inc., the court found that the named plaintiff in a purported class action had' standing to assert claims based on iPhone models other than the one he had purchased and that Apple’s standing argument “boil[ed] down to questions of whether common issues predominate and whether plaintiff can adequately represent absent class members, issues that are better resolved at the class certification stage.” Id. (quoting Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2…

As this Court noted in its previous order, “the Ninth Circuit has recently cautioned [that], in the context of product defect claims, California courts have generally rejected a broad obligation to disclose.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 925 (N.D.Cal.2012) (citing Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir.2012)) (internal quotations omitted).

Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 925 (N.D.Cal.2012).

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 922 , 11-CV-05337 RMW, 2012 WL 1657119, at *7 (N.D.Cal.

Cal. 2016), aff’d, 700 F. App’x 18 588 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

“To properly plead breach of contract, ‘[t]he complaint 27 must identify the specific provisions of the contract allegedly breached by the defendant.’” 1 588 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

Cal. 2016), aff’d, 700 F. App’x 588 (9th Cir. 27 2017) (quoting Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

Cal. 2016), aff’d, 700 F. App’x 588 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Donohue v. Apple, 14 Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

Cal. Feb. 11, 2025) (“The complaint is … subject to 21 dismissal for failure to state a claim … [T]he complaint must identify the specific provision of the 22 contract allegedly breached by the defendant. … Plaintiff neither provides allegations … nor 23 specifies the provisions of the contract that defendant allegedly breached.”) (citing Donohue v. 24 Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp.2d 913, 930 (N.D.

See supra at 32–33; see also Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 933 (N.D.

Cal. 2016), aff’d, 700 F. App’x 588 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 7 Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

Cal. Sept. 14 17, 2020); see also Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

Cal. 14 2012) (citing Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 921-22 (N.D.

Cal. Sept. 21 17, 2020); see also Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913 , 930 15 (N.D.

Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 929 (N.D.

Id. at 12. 9 Comparing the § 2810.3(d) requirement to a similar notice requirement in the California 10 Commercial Code, the court reasoned that allowing leave to amend would eliminate pre-litigation 11 settlements or remedies and “‘invite gamesmanship by plaintiffs who know they intend to assert a 12 warranty claim but want to avoid giving a defendant notice before filing suit.’” Id. (citing 13 Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 929-30 (N.D.

Id. at 323 . 19 20 Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919 (N.D.

Id. at 323 . 19 20 Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919 (N.D.

At a minimum, “[t]he complaint must identify the specific provision of the contract 3 allegedly breached by the defendant.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D. 4 Cal. 2012 ) (citation omitted); DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 311376 , at *10 (N.D. 5 Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (plaintiff must allege sufficient facts “to allow the Court to draw a reasonable 6 inference that [there was a] definite promise, supported by consideration, that would establish a…

Thus, “[t]he complaint must identify the specific provision of the contract allegedly 4 breached by the defendant.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

To properly plead breach of contract, “[t]he complaint must identify the specific provision of the contract allegedly breached by the defendant.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 930 (N.D.Cal.2012) (citing Progressive West Ins.

Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 835 , 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 126 (2006), as modified (Nov. 8, 2006) (“[Although a claim may be stated under the CLRA in terms constituting fraudulent omissions, to be actionable the omission must be contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.”); id. at 838 , 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 126 (holding that the court “cannot agree that a failure to disclose a fact one'has …

See Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1145 (California consumer fraud claims); Hudson River Cruises, Inc. v. Bridgeport Drydock Coip., 892 F.Supp. 380, 387 (D.Conn.1994) (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act); Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988) (Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act): Allen v. Bank of Am., N.A., 933 F.Supp.2d 716, 727 (D.Md.2013) (Maryland Consumer Protection Act): Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 927 (N.D.Cal.2012) (Washington Consume…

In general, the purpose of the notice requirement is “to allow the breaching party to cure the breach and thereby avoid the necessity of litigating the matter in court.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 929 (N.D.Cal.2012); see also, e.g., McKay v. Novartis Pharm.

As another judge in the Northern District wrote, allowing a plaintiff to assert a warranty claim under these circumstances would “eliminate Apple’s opportunity to repair the defective item or negotiate a settlement- before the initiation of litigation” and would “invite gamesmanship by plaintiffs who know they intend to assert a warranty claim but want to avoid giving a defendant notice before filing suit.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 929-30 (N.D.Cal.2012) (in…

“As the Ninth Circuit has recently cautioned, in the context of product defect claims, ‘California courts have generally rejected a broad duty to disclose.’ ” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 925 (N.D.Cal.2012) (citing Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard, Co., 668 3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir.2012).

Id.; Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 922 (N.D.Cal.2012) (allowing plaintiff to represent a class of persons who purchased different but similar products reasoning that “questions of whether common issues predominate and whether plaintiff can adequately represent absent class members, [are] is sues that are better resolved at the class certification stage.”).

Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1095 (N.D.Cal.2007) (stating that materiality is viewed from the prospective of the reasonable consumer); Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921 (N.D.Cal.2012) (stating that the plaintiff satisfied the causation requirement by pleading that he would not have purchased the product and or would have asked for a timely refund had he known certain material facts).

Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 931 (N.D.Cal.2012) (dismissing breach of the express warranty claim and cautioning that the position advanced by plaintiff that “an instructional manual is a contract would vastly expand the scope of a manufacturer’s express and implied warranties, creating a perverse incentive for manufacturers to avoid including comprehensive manuals with their products”).

A. Breach of Contract “In order to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must plead the exis tence of a contract, his performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, the defendant’s breach and resulting damages." Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 930 (N.D.Cal.2012) (citing Otworth v. Southern Pac.

Honda Motor Co., Inc., 284 F.R.D. 504, 529 (C.D.Cal.2012) (describing the requirement that an “undis closed defect ... pose ‘safety concerns’ ” as applying only “if a claim based on a failure to disclose arises outside the warranty period”); Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 926 (N.D.Cal.2012) (distinguishing Wilson and its progeny, which “reject[ ] duty to disclose claims based on product defects that manifested themselves after the expiration of a manufacturer’s e…

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921-22 , No. 11-cv- 05337 RMW, 2012 WL 1657119, at *6 (N.D.Cal.

See CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239 (2008). 11 Additionally, “[t]he complaint must identify the specific provision of the contract allegedly 12 breached by the defendant.” Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 930 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 5 871 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913 , 932-33 ——ee me me IEE INE OS OE IRIE III IIR III I EIEIO □□□ IIE IIE ISIE ISIE IE ESOS SEE 1 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 933 (N.D.

See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 922 (N.D.Cal.2012); see also In re Clorox Consumer Litigation, 894 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1237 (N.D.Cal.2012) (“Since the parties have yet to develop a factual record, it is unclear whether applying different state consumer protection statutes could have a material impact on the viability of Plaintiffs claims”).

See, e.g., Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921-22 (N.D.Cal.2012) (collecting cases).

See, e.g., Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921-22 (N.D.Cal.2012) (collecting cases).

See, e.g., Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 921-22 (N.D.Cal.2012) (collecting cases).