This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/10/2021 at 05:53:27 (UTC).

Smith et al v. Apple, Inc.

Case Summary

On December 9, 2021, Chris Smith, Cheryl Smith, Karen Smithson, Jason Roush, and Corey Pomroy (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Michael Francis Ram of Morgan & Morgan, filed a contract lawsuit against Apple, Inc (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory reliefs and damages along with prejudgement and post-judgement interests and other reliefs for the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Donna M. Ryu presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “This action is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased First Generation (“Series 0”), Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches of every size and model (collectively, the “Apple Watch” or “Watch”).” The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “However, the Apple Watch contains an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety hazard: a small wearable device intended to rest on a user’s wrist with no thermal or other solution to prevent and/or mitigate the danger of a detached, shattered, or cracked Watch screen resulting from the insufficient space allocated within the device for the rectangular shaped, electromagnetically charged lithium cobalt oxide battery inside a polymer pouch (the “Defect”).”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Knowing the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell, Apple allocated insufficient room inside the Watch for it to freely expand without affecting the Watch screen face and/or failed to incorporate a protective guard to keep it from making contact with the Watch screen face, and/or otherwise failed to prevent detachment, shattering, or cracking of the Watch screen face”

 

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “The Defect poses a material and unreasonable safety hazard to consumers, as it has caused many purchasers to suffer lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and/or other injuries in connection with the screens cracking, shattering and/or detaching from the body of the Watches. Notwithstanding the material and unreasonable safety hazard caused by the Defect with the Watches, Apple did not disclose the Defect to consumers.” The Plaintiffs then alleged that, “On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff Chris Smith was wearing his Watch on his left wrist while sitting in a golf cart. As Plaintiff Chris Smith reached down from the steering wheel to place the golf cart in motion, a detached screen on his Apple Watch severely sliced the underside of Plaintiff’s forearm, cutting a vein, and resulting in substantial personal injury. The watch was no longer operational”

 

Similar allegations have been made by other plaintiffs against the Apple Watch, where they alleged that it caused injuries to them.

 

There are six claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiffs. The first claim alleged is for violations of Unfair Competition Law. The second claim alleged is for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The third claim alleged is for fraud by omission. The fourth claim alleged is for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The fifth claim alleged is for breach of implied warranty. The sixth claim alleged is for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs requested the Court to certify this action as a class action. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs requested the Court for declaratory reliefs and damages including all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages. The Plaintiffs further requested the Court for pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

 

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:

    4:21-CV-09527

  • Filing Date:

    12/09/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Donna M. Ryu

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Chris Smith

Cheryl Smith

Karen Smithson

Jason Roush

Corey Pomroy

Defendant

Apple, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Michael Francis Ram

Attorney at Morgan & Morgan

711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Exhibit A

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #3

Exhibit C

1 #4

Exhibit D

1 #5

Exhibit E

1 #6

Exhibit F

1 #7

Civil Cover Sheet

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/09/2021
  • Docket(#2) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. 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 http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. 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 12/23/2021. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2021) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-16703778.). Filed byChris Smith, Jason Roush, Karen Smithson, Cheryl Smith, Corey Pomroy. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ram, Michael) (Filed on 12/9/2021) (Entered: 12/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Apple Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Michael Francis Ram