Apple Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One · 2018 · Property

PropertyClass certificationExpert evidenceSargonexpert testimonyclass certificationadmissibilityEvidence Code sections 801-803

Facts

Plaintiffs alleged that certain iPhone models had defective power buttons and moved to certify California purchaser classes limited to phones whose power buttons stopped working or worked intermittently during the warranty period. To show classwide injury, damages, restitution, and class size, plaintiffs relied on expert declarations proposing methodologies based on repair cost, diminished trade-in value, conjoint analysis, and estimated failure rates drawn from Apple documents. Apple opposed certification and challenged those experts as unreliable, irrelevant, and methodologically unsound, invoking Sargon. The trial court granted certification but stated that questions about the experts' materials, methodologies, and analyses were issues for trial rather than for class certification.

Issue

When a trial court considers a motion for class certification, must it apply the Supreme Court's Sargon analysis to expert opinion evidence offered in support of or in opposition to certification? If the trial court refuses to do so, can that error require vacatur of the certification order?

Rule

A trial court may consider only admissible expert opinion evidence on a motion for class certification, and there is only one California standard for admissibility of expert opinion evidence. Under Sargon, the court acts as a gatekeeper and must exclude expert opinion that is based on matter on which an expert may not reasonably rely, based on reasons unsupported by the relied-on material, or speculative; the court examines principles and methodology, not persuasiveness, and need not hold an Evidence Code section 802 hearing in every case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a putative class action in San Diego over allegedly defective smart thermostats, the plaintiffs move for class certification and submit an engineer's declaration to prove classwide failure rates and damages. The trial judge states that reliability objections to the declaration concern the merits and will be addressed at trial, not at certification.

Under the governing rule, how should the court treat the expert declaration at the certification stage?

Explanation. A court deciding class certification may consider only admissible expert opinion evidence. The same California admissibility standard applies there as elsewhere, and the court must perform gatekeeping rather than postponing reliability questions to trial. The fact that certification is procedural does not exempt expert evidence from admissibility review.