I last wrote about the case of Smith, et al v. Apple back in August in the following entries:

Since that time, on October 10, 2008, Apple moved to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. Basically, Apple alleges that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with a necessary condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit on the alleged grounds under Alabama law: they failed to contact Apple to allow Apple the chance to repair or replace the iPhones if necessary. Apple also alleges that a case for unjust enrichment is barred under the terms of its One Year Warranty.

The Plaintiffs responded on October 21, 2008, relying heavily on the much-publicized problems that some users were having with their devices resulting in Apple already providing multiple corrective updates and that Apple and/or its distributors leaked information that additional corrective updates were forthcoming which would remedy the problems in full. Thus, they claim that Apple had sufficient notice to satisfy the spirit of the Alabama requirement. They further claim that they cannot be denied unjust enrichment relief as they were unaware of the One Year Warranty and its terms.

On October 24, 2008, the Court noted that the parties are in dispute as to the existence and/or knowledge of this warranty and gave the parties seven days to attempt to come to an agreement on that issue. If the parties could not agree, the Court stated that it would rule upon Apple’s Motion without assuming the existence and/or delivery of the alleged warranty.

On November 4, 2008, the Court issued its Opinion and Order as two separate filings. The Court’s Opinion noted that the existence and/or delivery of the warranty remains a contested issue. The Court granted Apple’s Motion to Dismiss as to the warranty claims and denied the Motion as to the unjust enrichment claim. While this may seem confusing, the granted portion was based not upon the existence of the disputed warranty issued by Apple but upon the Alabama Commercial Code which legislates that providing actual notice is an absolute condition precedent to any claim of breach of warranty. The Court noted that the Code provides that the seller must be notified within a reasonable amount of time after discovery of the problem or else be barred from any remedy. [emphasis in original] The Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument of general notice and opined in some detail as to its reasoning that notice was required as to these specific devices purchased by these specific people.

In its separate Order of the same date, Counts I and II of the Plaintiff’s complaints were officially dismissed with prejudice (meaning that they are adjudicated in finality, unless appealed, if possible) and that the Plaintiffs’ claim of unjust enrichment remained as there were factual disputes between the parties as to the existence and/or delivery of the alleged One Year Warranty provided by Apple. The Court noted that this dismissal with prejudice does not affect the rights of any members of the putative class.

On November 19, 2008, Apple responded to the remaining claim and various factual allegations in the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The crux of Apple’s Answer is its denial that the iPhone 3G is defective. As far as the request for class-action status, Apple denied that class treatment is warranted in this instance and that any members of this purported class have not been damaged or entitled to relief. Apple repeated its assertion of the existence of its One Year Warranty which would bar the claim of unjust enrichment. Apple also asserted nineteen affirmative defenses. At first, I was going to repeat them all here but decided to wait for reader input as I am learning that not all tech geeks are also legal geeks who like to read court filings for fun. Let me know if those additional details are something you would be interested in.

The last filing was entered on November 20, 2008 and comprised an Order from Judge Acker reminding the parties of certain local rules and asking for notification if this case should be evaluated for ADR (alternative dispute resolution).

I will post additional updates regarding this case as they become available.