This case was last updated from PACER on 09/15/2021 at 07:23:16 (UTC).

Almeida v. Apple, Inc.

Case Summary

On September 14, 2021, Nestor Almeida (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, represented by L. Timothy Fisher of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), seeking damages along with prejudgement and post-judgement interests, among other reliefs, for the alleged fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation of the Defendant’s product. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Susan Van Keulen presiding. 


In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “M1 MacBook is defective, as the screens are extraordinarily fragile, cracking, blacking out, or showing magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise ceasing to function altogether (the “Defect”). Thousands of users from across the globe have reported this issue directly to Apple and on Apple sponsored forums. Nonetheless, consumers who have attempted to secure replacements or repairs have been rebuffed by Apple, often forced to pay out of pocket upwards of between $600 and $850 for repairs themselves or to secure replacements without Apple’s assistance. Others who have secured repairs or replacements from Apple have quickly experienced the problem reappearing on the repaired or replaced laptop.”


The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Apple intentionally suppressed and concealed material facts about the performance and quality of the M1 MacBook. As alleged herein, Apple knew that the M1 MacBook screen is defective. Further, Apple was aware of numerous consumer complaints concerning defect-related problems, but never disclosed the defect to Plaintiff and Class members” and “Apple had a duty to disclose the Defect because the Defect is material and Apple possessed exclusive knowledge of it. Apple conducted pre-release testing of the M1 MacBook and its internal components. This testing would have revealed the existence of the Defect before the M1 Macbook’s release. Only Apple had access to those test results.”


The Plaintiff also alleged that, “When deciding to purchase a MacBook, Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied to their detriment upon Apple’s material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the quality of the M1 MacBook and the absence of a product defect” and “Plaintiff and Class members sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Apple’s deceit and fraudulent concealment.”


There are five claims of relief laid down by the Plaintiff and the class members. The first claim is for alleged fraudulent concealment on behalf of the class and subclass. The second claim is for alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq. (“NJCFA”) on behalf of the class and subclass. The third and fourth claims are for alleged breach of express warranty, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-313 and alleged breach of implied warranty, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-314, respectively, on behalf of the class and subclass. The fifth claim is for alleged breach of contract or common law warranty on behalf of the class and subclass.


In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court certify this action as a class action and award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages and/or restitution to which Plaintiff and Class members are entitled. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for appropriate equitable relief and prejudgement and post-judgement interest along with reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Susan van Keulen


Party Details


Nestor Almeida


Apple, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

L. Timothy Fisher

Attorney at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940

Walnut Creek, CA 94596


Court Documents


(#2) Proposed Summons. (Fisher, L.) (Filed on 9/14/2021) (Entered: 09/14/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet


(#1) COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16389364.). Filed byNestor Almeida. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fisher, L.) (Filed on 9/14/2021) (Entered: 09/14/2021)


Docket Entries

  • 09/14/2021
  • Docket(#3) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/28/2021. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2021) (Entered: 09/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Fisher, L.) (Filed on 9/14/2021) (Entered: 09/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16389364.). Filed byNestor Almeida. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fisher, L.) (Filed on 9/14/2021) (Entered: 09/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where Apple Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer L. Timothy Fisher