Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Plaintift
V.
APPLE,INC.,
Defendant.
I
O RDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Courton the Defendant's Motion to Dism iss Plaintifrs
review .
1. BACKG RO UND
Apple released an update, the iOS7 operating system , w hich consumers could installon
comm unicate with friends and fam ilyw hile he was deployed. See (Am.Com pl
.(DE I29J),
1131). Plaintiffclaimsthe iphone4 was operating on iOS 6 (and earlierversionsofiOS)
when the ability to use FaceTim e was intentionally broken by Apple on April16, 2014.
Since then,Plaintiffhas been unable to use FaceTime on his iphone 4 He claim s this
.
has significantly reduced the value of the device as the advedised feature lost
(Count11).
II. LEGAL STA NDA RD
Atthe pleading stage,a com plaintm ustcontain $'a shod and plain statementofthe
2
Case 1:19-cv-23623-AHS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2020 Page 3 of 8
conclusions ...a form ulaic recitation ofthe cause ofaction willnotdo '' BellAtl.Corp.?.
.
''to state a claim forreliefthat is plausible on its face.'' Id.at 555 '$
. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiffpleads factualcontentthat allows the court to draw the
111. DISGUSSIO N
In its M otion to Dism iss,Apple argues this Coud should dism iss PlaintiT s claim for
trespass to chattel because digitalsoftware is not chattel under Florida law . Apple
elaborates that ''an action for trespass to chattels m ust involve m ovable personal
notto install.
4
Case 1:19-cv-23623-AHS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2020 Page 5 of 8
Finally,Apple argues the case should be dism issed because both of PlaintiT s
April 16,2014. Apple insists this is dispositive because Plaintiff's causes of action
accrued l'
w henthe lastelementconsti
tutingthe cause ofaction occurEredl.''Hearndon v.
Graham ,767 So.2d 1179,1184-85 (FIa.2000)(citation om i
tted).W hile Plainti
ffagrees
the complaintwas notfiled untilfive years Iater,he alleges that''(a)IIapplicable statutes
ofIim itations have been tolled by Apple's knowing and active fraudulentconcealmentand
denialofthe facts alleged herein through the period relevantto this action '
.'(Am.Compl.
(DE E29)),% 130).
Plaintiffclaim s he did notknow ,and could nothave known,aboutthe facts giving
rise to this case untilM ay 9,2016,w hen transcripts from the 2016 Virnetx trialbecame
genera//y Fla. Stat. j 95.051. Plaintiff admits that fraudulent concealment is not
specifically enum erated in the statute,however,Plaintiffargues itis 'lwidely accepted as
5
Case 1:19-cv-23623-AHS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2020 Page 6 of 8
place him in ignorance ofhis rightto a cause ofaction orto preventhim from discovering
FDUTPA.The coud need notreach the merits ofthese claim s,however,because Apple's
statute ofIim itations should be raised as an affirm ative defense in the answerratherthan
in a m otion to dism iss ... However,iffacts on the face ofthe pleadings show thatthe
statute oflim itations bars the action,the defense can be raised by m otion to dism iss.''
m eaning ofthe statutory Ianguage in the contextofthe entire statute,as assisted by the
accepted basis forequitable tolling ofthe statute ofIim itations in Florida,the controlling
6
Case 1:19-cv-23623-AHS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2020 Page 7 of 8
Fla.Stat.j 95.051(2).
,see also Hearndon,767 So.2d at1185.
'Fraudulentconcealm entcan tollthe running ofa statute ofIim itations w hen the
fraud perpetrated upon the injured party places him in ignorance ofhis rightto sue.''Burr
B.Phillp Morr/sUSA /rr.,559 Fed.Appx.961,964 (11thCir.2014)(quoting WirtB.Central
Life Assur.,Co.,613 So.2d 478,479 (FIa.2d DCA 1992)(citing Nardone B.Reynolds,
333 So.2d 25 (FIa.1976)).''Fraudulentconcealmentrequiresthe defendantsto engage
in the willfulconcealm entofthe cause ofaction using fraudulentmeans to achieve that
Plaintiff to Iearn of the FaceTim e interruption. Apple announced the release of the
Coud finds Plaintif s claim s are barred by the statute of Iim itations. Accordingly,itis
hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDG ED thatthe Defendant's Motion to Dism iss Plaintifrs
7
Case 1:19-cv-23623-AHS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2020 Page 8 of 8
(DE (41))is GRANTED. This cause shallstand DISMISSED W ITH PREJUDICE. See
Hollis ?. > Acad. Charlec /nc.,782 Fed.Appx.951,953 (11th Cir.2019) (quoting
Gonsa/vez v.Celebrity Cruises,Inc.,750 F.3d 1195,1197 (11th Cir.2013))(''A Rule
12(b)(6)dismissalbased on the statute ofIimitations is proper'ifitis apparentfrom the
face ofthe complaintthatthe claim istime-barred.'n). The Clerk ofCourtis directed to
CLO SE this case and DENY AS M OOT any pending m otions .
April2020.
RM G SING H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE