1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRIS SMITH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 9 v. COMPLAINT AND TO MODIFY THE CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 10 APPLE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 116 11 Defendant.
12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint and to modify the 14 case management schedule. Dkt. No. 116. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the 15 motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 This is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Apple Watches. See Dkt. 18 No. 84, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that First Generation, Series 1 19 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches contain “an undisclosed and unreasonably 20 dangerous safety hazard.” Id. ¶ 2. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that sudden swelling of the 21 watch batteries can cause the screen to detach, shatter, or crack, “exposing its razor-sharp edges 22 and leading to operational failure of the Watch and/or personal injuries . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs allege 23 that Apple failed to allot sufficient space within the watch to prevent the screen issue, “[d]espite 24 knowing that the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell.” Id. Plaintiffs further allege that 25 the watches have injured Plaintiffs and putative class members, creating a “substantial and 26 material risk of serious injury, including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and other injuries.” Id. ¶ 10. 27 Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class, an internet subclass, and state-specific 1 assert the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) violations of the California Unlawful 2 Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); (2) violations of the 3 California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); (3) fraud 4 by omission under various state laws; (4) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 et seq.; and (5) violations of consumer protection laws in New York, Texas 6 and Florida. See SAC ¶¶ 33–434. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a case management schedule “may be 9 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The party 10 seeking to amend a pleading after the deadline set by the pretrial scheduling order expires “must 11 satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of [Rule] 16(b)(4) . . . rather than the liberal standard of [Rule] 12 15(a).” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) 13 (brackets in original), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). As the 14 Ninth Circuit has explained: 15 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence 16 of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 17 diligence of the party seeking the extension. . . . Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 18 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 19 modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. 20 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and quotation 21 marks omitted). If “good cause” for amendment is found under Rule 16(b), the Court may then 22 consider whether leave to amend should be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a). Thomas v. San 23 Francisco Travel Ass'n, Case No. 14-cv-03043-YGR, 2016 WL 861239, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 24 2016). Because Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ inquiry essentially incorporates the first three factors of 25 the Rule 15 analysis, “if a court finds that good cause exists, it should then deny a motion for leave 26 to amend only if such amendment would be futile.” Heath v. Google Inc., No. 15-cv-01824-BLF, 27 2016 WL 4070135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016). III. DISCUSSION 1 A. Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 2 Plaintiffs seek leave to file a third amended complaint “not to add or change any legal 3 claims or parties – but [] to conform their definition of the Defect (and Apple’s knowledge 4 thereof) to the evidence Apple has produced and the recent inspections of the named Plaintiffs’ 5 Watches that have taken place.” Dkt. No. 116 at 1. Because the deadline to amend pleadings set 6 in the Court’s scheduling order has passed, Plaintiffs must meet the “good cause” standard of 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs have done so here and thus the Court 8 GRANTS their motion for leave to file the proposed third amended complaint. 9 i. Good Cause/Diligence 10 Plaintiffs contend that they have met the good cause standard because they did not fully 11 learn of the facts supporting their updated battery defect theory until after the deadline to amend 12 pleadings. Plaintiffs also contend that the parties’ agreed-upon neutral expert was not able to 13 complete the comprehensive disassembly and testing of the watches until August 11, 2023. 14 Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing good cause and diligence. First, as the Court 15 pointed out at the October 5, 2023 hearing, the deadline for amending pleadings was clearly 16 unreasonably early in hindsight, and the Court had to choose a date more or less arbitrarily 17 because the parties failed to propose one in their stipulated schedule. Compare Dkt. No. 53 18 (stipulation) with Dkt. No. 55 (scheduling order). Plaintiffs point out, and Defendant does not 19 dispute, that among other things Defendant produced over a million pages of documents after 20 April 3, 2023, many months after the September 9, 2022 amendment deadline set in the 21 scheduling order. Dkt. No. 116 at 3. 22 Relatedly, the record reflects that Plaintiffs could not reasonably have obtained the 23 information needed to understand the specific details of how battery swelling and other conditions 24 might together or separately contribute to causing the alleged defect until after exchanging 25 discovery and conducting the agreed-upon neutral expert testing. It is undisputed that the joint 26 inspection of the batteries did not begin until the end of June and concluded in the middle of 27 August. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiffs promptly sought leave to amend. Despite Defendant’s 1 insistence that Plaintiffs were on notice of the aspects of the expanded definition of the alleged 2 defect a year before the joint inspection, the record reflects that Plaintiffs reasonably assessed a 3 very large (and ongoing) volume of discovery, and sought leave based on their review of that 4 discovery and the results of the expert testing. The Court also agrees that Plaintiffs are not adding 5 any new defendants or products, and are simply conforming their factual allegations regarding the 6 Defect (and Apple’s knowledge of it) to the evidence Apple has produced and the recent 7 inspections. Plaintiffs have established diligence and good cause to amend their Complaint.1 8 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.2 9 B. Motion to Modify Case Management Schedule 10 Plaintiffs move to modify the case management schedule. See Dkt. No. 116 at. 14-15.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRIS SMITH, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09527-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 9 v. COMPLAINT AND TO MODIFY THE CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 10 APPLE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 116 11 Defendant.
12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint and to modify the 14 case management schedule. Dkt. No. 116. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the 15 motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 This is a putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Apple Watches. See Dkt. 18 No. 84, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege that First Generation, Series 1 19 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches contain “an undisclosed and unreasonably 20 dangerous safety hazard.” Id. ¶ 2. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that sudden swelling of the 21 watch batteries can cause the screen to detach, shatter, or crack, “exposing its razor-sharp edges 22 and leading to operational failure of the Watch and/or personal injuries . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs allege 23 that Apple failed to allot sufficient space within the watch to prevent the screen issue, “[d]espite 24 knowing that the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell.” Id. Plaintiffs further allege that 25 the watches have injured Plaintiffs and putative class members, creating a “substantial and 26 material risk of serious injury, including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and other injuries.” Id. ¶ 10. 27 Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class, an internet subclass, and state-specific 1 assert the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) violations of the California Unlawful 2 Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); (2) violations of the 3 California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); (3) fraud 4 by omission under various state laws; (4) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 et seq.; and (5) violations of consumer protection laws in New York, Texas 6 and Florida. See SAC ¶¶ 33–434. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a case management schedule “may be 9 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The party 10 seeking to amend a pleading after the deadline set by the pretrial scheduling order expires “must 11 satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of [Rule] 16(b)(4) . . . rather than the liberal standard of [Rule] 12 15(a).” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) 13 (brackets in original), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). As the 14 Ninth Circuit has explained: 15 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence 16 of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 17 diligence of the party seeking the extension. . . . Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 18 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 19 modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. 20 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and quotation 21 marks omitted). If “good cause” for amendment is found under Rule 16(b), the Court may then 22 consider whether leave to amend should be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a). Thomas v. San 23 Francisco Travel Ass'n, Case No. 14-cv-03043-YGR, 2016 WL 861239, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 24 2016). Because Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ inquiry essentially incorporates the first three factors of 25 the Rule 15 analysis, “if a court finds that good cause exists, it should then deny a motion for leave 26 to amend only if such amendment would be futile.” Heath v. Google Inc., No. 15-cv-01824-BLF, 27 2016 WL 4070135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016). III. DISCUSSION 1 A. Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 2 Plaintiffs seek leave to file a third amended complaint “not to add or change any legal 3 claims or parties – but [] to conform their definition of the Defect (and Apple’s knowledge 4 thereof) to the evidence Apple has produced and the recent inspections of the named Plaintiffs’ 5 Watches that have taken place.” Dkt. No. 116 at 1. Because the deadline to amend pleadings set 6 in the Court’s scheduling order has passed, Plaintiffs must meet the “good cause” standard of 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Plaintiffs have done so here and thus the Court 8 GRANTS their motion for leave to file the proposed third amended complaint. 9 i. Good Cause/Diligence 10 Plaintiffs contend that they have met the good cause standard because they did not fully 11 learn of the facts supporting their updated battery defect theory until after the deadline to amend 12 pleadings. Plaintiffs also contend that the parties’ agreed-upon neutral expert was not able to 13 complete the comprehensive disassembly and testing of the watches until August 11, 2023. 14 Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing good cause and diligence. First, as the Court 15 pointed out at the October 5, 2023 hearing, the deadline for amending pleadings was clearly 16 unreasonably early in hindsight, and the Court had to choose a date more or less arbitrarily 17 because the parties failed to propose one in their stipulated schedule. Compare Dkt. No. 53 18 (stipulation) with Dkt. No. 55 (scheduling order). Plaintiffs point out, and Defendant does not 19 dispute, that among other things Defendant produced over a million pages of documents after 20 April 3, 2023, many months after the September 9, 2022 amendment deadline set in the 21 scheduling order. Dkt. No. 116 at 3. 22 Relatedly, the record reflects that Plaintiffs could not reasonably have obtained the 23 information needed to understand the specific details of how battery swelling and other conditions 24 might together or separately contribute to causing the alleged defect until after exchanging 25 discovery and conducting the agreed-upon neutral expert testing. It is undisputed that the joint 26 inspection of the batteries did not begin until the end of June and concluded in the middle of 27 August. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiffs promptly sought leave to amend. Despite Defendant’s 1 insistence that Plaintiffs were on notice of the aspects of the expanded definition of the alleged 2 defect a year before the joint inspection, the record reflects that Plaintiffs reasonably assessed a 3 very large (and ongoing) volume of discovery, and sought leave based on their review of that 4 discovery and the results of the expert testing. The Court also agrees that Plaintiffs are not adding 5 any new defendants or products, and are simply conforming their factual allegations regarding the 6 Defect (and Apple’s knowledge of it) to the evidence Apple has produced and the recent 7 inspections. Plaintiffs have established diligence and good cause to amend their Complaint.1 8 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.2 9 B. Motion to Modify Case Management Schedule 10 Plaintiffs move to modify the case management schedule. See Dkt. No. 116 at. 14-15. 11 Defendant requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to amend in its entirety, but does not 12 specifically set out its position on Plaintiffs’ proposed extensions to the case schedule. Given that 13 the Court has now granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint, the case schedule 14 clearly will need to be modified. However, since it is unclear whether Defendant agrees to 15 Plaintiffs’ proposed amended schedule, the Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer and 16 file a joint stipulation and proposed amended scheduling order through class certification within 17 one week of this order. The proposal should reflect Plaintiffs’ counsel’s commitment at the 18 1 Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced if leave to amend is granted, because doing so “would 19 require the litigation to start over,” Dkt. No. 123 at 11. The Court disagrees for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs confirmed at the hearing that they will not serve any further written discovery, and 20 will only seek any outstanding responses to already-served discovery. October 5, 2023, Hr’g Tr. at 26 ¶¶11-16. Second, Plaintiffs have also committed to filing their motion for class certification 21 by January, assuming they receive timely production of the outstanding materials. October 5, 2023, Hr’g Tr. at 10, 20, 23 . Finally, that Defendant may decide to pursue further pleadings 22 challenges, or will have to participate in some additional discovery, is not prejudicial under the circumstances: it is the natural consequence of participating for several years in a complex and 23 hotly-contested litigation like this case. And Defendant would face these same burdens if, for example, Plaintiffs simply filed a new case adding the revised allegations. 24
2 Defendant argues that even if Plaintiffs satisfy the good cause requirement of Rule 16, they 25 cannot meet the requirements of Rule 15, particularly because amendment would be futile. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ equitable relief claims fail under Sonner and are time barred. 26 Opposition to a motion for leave to amend is not, however, the appropriate procedural mechanism to raise a Rule 12(b)(6) argument that should be made in a motion to dismiss. See Trujillo v. Tony 27 Avis Hay Serv., 2:21-cv-01446-MCE-KJN, 2023 WL 297853, at *4 (E.D. Cal. August 3, 2023) 1 hearing to file the class certification motion by January 2024. If the parties cannot agree on a 2 schedule, they must submit separate proposed schedules, without argument, and the Court will 3 impose a schedule. 4 || IV. CONCLUSION 5 The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. 6 || Plaintiffs shall file their third amended complaint by the close of business, November 1, 2023. 7 || Because the Court has granted leave to file the third amended complaint, Defendant’s motion to 8 || dismiss the second amended complaint is TERMINATED AS MOOT. See Dkt. No. 100. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: 10/30/2023 11 7 Haspucerd ZB Ld, bh HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28