Apple Can’t Escape MacBook Filter Defect Class Action

A federal judge recently denied Apple’s attempt to dismiss a MacBook, iMac filter defect class action, saying both parties need to work together to trim the claims.

According to U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh, she could not approve Apple’s motion to dismiss because the “unwieldy” nature of the case.

Judge Koh said that, in order for the suit to proceed, Apple and the plaintiffs will need to cooperate in trimming four-fifths of the claims brought in the class action lawsuit.

“The court cannot analyze a motion to dismiss that addresses 46 causes of action and 14 different state laws,” Judge Koh determined.

Plaintiffs Kim Ahern, Nikolas Frenzel, and Justin Evans filed their class action lawsuit against Apple in November 2018, claiming that the tech giant did not equip their iMacs and MacBooks with filters. Due to the lack of filter components, these products are allegedly at risk of overheating.

In addition to overheating risks, the lack of an air filter reportedly causes dust to migrate into the computer screens. This may result in dark smudges at the corners of the iMac and MacBook screen, making the computers unusable.

The Apple filter class action lawsuit was amended in February to include 46 counts of federal and state law violations and 16 plaintiffs representing 14 states.

The amended suit includes a nationwide Class of affected consumers as well as 14 subclasses for the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah.

In March, Apple responded to the amended complaint with a motion to dismiss. The company claimed that the risk for screen smudges was “explicitly” warned and that it had provided repairs for computers under warranty.

“Although plaintiffs apparently claim additional or different disclosures should have been made, they never explain what else Apple should disclose or where those additional disclosures should have appeared,” Apple claimed in their dismissal motion.

Judge Koh rejected this motion, stating that the “unwieldy” nature of the dismissal motion reflects the equally “unwieldy” nature of the class action lawsuit itself.

The court is reportedly unable to make any sort of ruling on the case or the dismissal motion due to the sheer number of claims brought by the plaintiffs.

“Not surprisingly, because the FAC is unwieldy, Apple’s motion to dismiss is also unwieldy,” Judge Koh wrote. “Apple’s motion is so unwieldy that Apple had to include a two-page summary chart of the causes of action and the bases of Apple’s motion.”

According to Judge Koh’s order, both parties will have to work together to reduce the class action to only 10 claims. Five of the claims will reportedly be chosen by the plaintiffs while the other five will be chosen by Apple. Only after the claims are chosen can Apple try again to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

The Apple consumers are represented by Steve W. Berman, Jerrod C. Patterson and Shana E. Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Apple MacBook Filter Class Action Lawsuit is Ahern, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-­cv­-07196, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Google Must Face Conservative Employee Bias Class Action

How Many Catholic Priests Have Been Accused in New York?

Cento Fine Foods Class Action Says San Marzano Tomatoes Are Misrepresented

Regions Bank Mortgage Loan Interest May Have Broken Federal Rules