Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 33
`
`(Additional counsel on following page)
`JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
`jperry@orrick.com
`MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
`mriechert@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
`kmantoan@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S
`FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`Dept:
`Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Honorable Edward M. Chen
`Date: August 22, 2024
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 33
`
`KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
`kjuvinall@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone:
`+1 310 633 2800
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 633 2849
`RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
`rbooms@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone:
`+1 202 339 8400
`Facsimile:
`+1 202 339 8500
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................. 1
`SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS ............................................................. 4
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`AMENDMENTS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE MAY 20 ORDER
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ................................................................................... 5
`ALL CLAIMS UNTETHERED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ................................................................................... 6
`1.
`NINTH CLAIM: THE UCL CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ........... 6
`2.
`TENTH & THIRTEENTH CLAIMS: PLAINTIFF’S MULTIPLE
`IIED CLAIMS FAIL. ................................................................................ 11
`ELEVENTH CLAIM: PLAINTIFF’S NUISANCE CLAIM IS
`TIME BARRED. ....................................................................................... 14
`TWELFTH CLAIM: PLAINTIFF’S ULTRAHAZARDOUS
`CLAIM IS TIME BARRED AND FAILS TO ALLEGE
`ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY UNDER THE LAW. ...................... 17
`SEVERAL OF PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION-RELATED CLAIMS
`ALSO FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM. .................................................................... 19
`1.
`SECOND CLAIM: PLAINTIFF’S 1102.5 CLAIM SHOULD BE
`DISMISSED IN PART. ............................................................................ 19
`FOURTH CLAIM: THE HSITA CLAIM SHOULD BE
`DISMISSED BECAUSE THE ALLEGED COMPLAINTS DO
`NOT CONCERN “HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.” .............................. 21
`FIFTH CLAIM: THE LABOR CODE SECTION 98.6 CLAIM
`FAILS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEKS CIVIL PENALTIES. ....... 21
`SIXTH CLAIM: THE LABOR CODE SECTION 232, 232.5, 1101,
`AND 1102 CLAIMS FAIL IN PART, TO THE EXTENT
`PREMISED ON ALLEGED STATEMENTS REGARDING
`PALESTINIANS, MUSLIMS, AND UYGHURS AND ALLEGED
`DISCLOSURES OF WAGES. ................................................................. 22
`SEVENTH CLAIM: THE SECTION 96(K) CLAIM FAILS
`BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. ................. 23
`EIGHTH CLAIM: THE BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
`CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF
`DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE CONTRACT OR PLEAD A TERM
`APPLE ALLEGEDLY BREACHED. ...................................................... 24
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- i -
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,
`846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................... 11, 15
`
`Bain v. Town of Hempstead,
`WL 413552 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2021), aff’d sub nom. T.B. by Bain v. Town of
`Hempstead Animal Shelter, 2022 WL 728826 (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2022) ................................. 12
`
`Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels,
`816 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Bell v. St. Clair,
`2015 WL 1606968 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Benson v. Kwikset Corp.,
`152 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2007), as modified on denial of reh’g (July 26, 2007) ...................... 7
`
`Benton v. Baker Hughes,
`2013 WL 3353636 (C. D. Cal. June 30, 2013) ..................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Indus.,
`7 Cal.4th 926 (1994) ............................................................................................................... 17
`
`Bhinder v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`2013 WL 4010583 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) .................................................................... 14, 16
`
`Bondarenko v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2016 WL 1622410 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2016) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Bontrager v. Showmark Media LLC,
`2014 WL 12600201 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2014) ........................................................................ 7
`
`Brahmana v. Lembo,
`2010 WL 965296 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Camsi IV v. Hunter Tech. Corp.,
`230 Cal. App. 3d 1525 (1991), reh’g denied and opinion modified (July 2,
`1991) ....................................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Mgmt. Grp. LLC,
`2016 WL 3879028 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016), aff’d, 743 F. App’x 883 (9th Cir.
`2018) ....................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- ii -
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 33
`
`Coal. for Reasonable Regul. of Naturally Occurring Substances v. Cal. Air Res.
`Bd.,
`122 Cal. App. 4th 1249 (2004), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 29, 2004) .................... 18
`
`Coppola v. Smith,
`19 F. Supp. 3d 960 (E.D. Cal. 2014) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`De Souza v. Dawson Tech., Inc.,
`2022 WL 298368 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2022) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Doe One v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`2022 WL 3139516 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2022) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Doe One v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`2024 WL 1707229 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2024) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Dowell v. Contra Costa Cnty.,
`928 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 23
`
`Echlin v. PeaceHealth,
`887 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Fenters v. Yosemite Chevron,
`2009 WL 4928362 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2009)......................................................................... 20
`
`Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc.,
`2010 WL 3910169 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) ............................................................................. 9
`
`Fleeman v. Cnty. of Kern,
`2021 WL 663764 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) ........................................................................... 24
`
`Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`35 Cal.4th 797 (2005) ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc.,
`14 Cal. 5th 719 (2023) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Garza v. BNSF R. Co.,
`2012 WL 2118179 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2012) ......................................................................... 11
`
`Greenfield MHP Assocs., L.P. v. Ametek, Inc.,
`145 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................. 16, 17
`
`Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp.,
`120 Cal. App. 4th 72 (2004).................................................................................................... 23
`
`Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l. Inc.,
`24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) ............................................................................................................. 24
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- iii -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 33
`
`Howe v. Target Corp.,
`2020 WL 5630273 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2020) ........................................................................ 24
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`508 F. Supp. 3d 633 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Jackson v. Mesa Cmty. Coll.,
`2022 WL 17717402 (9th Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) ......................................................................... 25
`
`James v. PC Matic, Inc.,
`2023 WL 4291668 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2023) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`44 Cal.3d 1103 (1988) ................................................................................................ 13, 15, 17
`
`King v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`2022 WL 4629448 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) ................................................................... 6, 22
`
`King v. Facebook, Inc.,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 11
`
`La v. San Mateo Cnty. Transit Dist.,
`2014 WL 4632224 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) ....................................................................... 19
`
`Lopez v. Wachovia Mortg.,
`2009 WL 4505919 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) .......................................................................... 3
`
`McKenna v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.,
`894 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Merrick Gables Ass’n, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead,
`691 F. Supp. 2d 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Mickens v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,
`2023 WL 5155027 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2023) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Minor v. Fedex Off. & Print Servs., Inc.,
`182 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................... 20
`
`Morales v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
`2006 WL 8455469 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2006) ......................................................................... 24
`
`Moreyra v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.,
`2012 WL 13014985 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
`731 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................... 22
`
`Norgart v. Upjohn Co.,
`21 Cal.4th 383 (1999) ............................................................................................................. 17
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- iv -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 33
`
`Park-Kim v. Daikin Indus., Ltd,
`2016 WL 5958251 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Pashman v. Aetna Ins. Co,
`2014 WL 3571689 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) ......................................................................... 25
`
`Peak v. TigerGraph, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4061703 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) ......................................................................... 25
`
`Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
`6 Cal.4th 965 (1993) ............................................................................................................... 14
`
`Schwartzman, Inc. v. General Elec. Co.,
`848 F. Supp. 942 (D.N.M. 1993) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Singelyn v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`2024 WL 1601857 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) ........................................................................... 9
`
`SunL Grp. (L.A.), Inc. v. Seaseng, Inc.,
`2007 WL 4144992 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2007) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc.,
`2013 WL 4528447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013), aff’d, 623 F. App’x 878 (9th
`Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`W. Digital Techs., Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.,
`2023 WL 7739816 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023) ........................................................................ 15
`
`Yurick v. Superior Court,
`209 Cal. App. 3d 1116 (1989) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Statutes
`
`42 U.S.C. §§6921-25 ..................................................................................................................... 18
`
`42 U.S.C. §6928(e) ....................................................................................................................... 18
`
`42 U.S.C. §7412 ............................................................................................................................ 18
`
`42 U.S.C. §7413 ............................................................................................................................ 18
`
`42 U.S.C. §11002 .................................................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17203 ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17204 ............................................................................................ 7, 9, 10
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17208 ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §340(a) .................................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- v -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 8 of 33
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §340.8 .................................................................................................... 12, 15
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §382 ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §339 .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, §93000 .................................................................................................... 17
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §96(k) ......................................................................................................... 3, 23, 24
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §98.6........................................................................................................... 3, 22, 23
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §232........................................................................................................ 3, 5, 22, 23
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §232.5..................................................................................................... 3, 5, 22, 23
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §1101...................................................................................................... 3, 5, 22, 23
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §1102...................................................................................................... 3, 5, 22, 23
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5............................................................................................. 2, 5, 19, 20, 21
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §6362.................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §6380.................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §6399.7................................................................................................................. 21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ........................................................................................................................ 2, 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 .......................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...................................................................................................................... 1, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`California Civil Jury Instructions No. 455 .................................................................................... 16
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- vi -
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 9 of 33
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`TO PLAINTIFF ASHLEY GJOVIK: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 22, 2024,
`at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, on the 17th Floor of the above-titled Court, located at 450 Golden
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Apple Inc. will move the Court for an Order
`dismissing the Second Claim (in part), the Fourth Claim, the Fifth Claim (in part), the Sixth Claim
`(in part), and the Seventh through Thirteenth Claims of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint on
`the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule
`12(b)(6).1 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the complete pleadings and records on file, and other evidence and
`arguments as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`As the Court recognized in its May 20, 2024 order regarding Plaintiff’s prior complaint,
`“[t]he gist of [Plaintiff’s] suit is that Apple retaliated against her because she complained about
`conduct at the company[.]” Dkt. 73 (the “May 20 Order”) at 1. This case should be a straightforward
`wrongful termination case, with companion claims for alleged whistleblower retaliation.
`Accordingly, Apple is not moving to dismiss any part of Plaintiff’s First or Third Claims, which
`allege wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation under California law.2
`However, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint (the “4AC”) continues to muddy the
`waters by inadequately pleading numerous claims that are not premised on purported retaliation,
`untethered to her employment with Apple, time barred, and/or not legally cognizable. Several of
`her retaliation-based claims fail to state a claim and are deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) as well. The
`4AC also goes well beyond what this Court authorized in its May 20 Order. There, the Court granted
`
`I.
`
`1 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted. The
`references to claims by number reflect the numbering of claims in the body of the Fourth Amended
`Complaint, rather than on the caption page (which contains contrary numbering).
`2 For purposes of this Motion only and under the Rules, Apple is required to accept Plaintiff’s
`factual allegations as if they were true, even though they are not, and to seek dismissal of those
`claims that fail to state a claim even if the allegations could be proven. That Apple is not moving
`to dismiss these claims does not imply that Apple believes they have any merit; they do not.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4THAC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- 1 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 10 of 33
`
`™
`
`leave to amend particular causes of action on particular bases, and to the extent Plaintiff could
`allege particular additional facts in good faith. Plaintiff has sought to add claims and allegations far
`outside the bounds of this Court’s order, without seeking leave. Her eleventh-hour attempt to
`introduce yet further claims and allegations into this litigation should be rejected.
`Apple moves to dismiss the following claims not tethered to Plaintiff’s employment:
`The Ninth Claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) should be
`dismissed because Plaintiff was not granted leave to amend to craft an entirely new theory of
`statutory standing, as she has attempted to do, and she nonetheless fails to establish any basis for
`statutory standing, which is dispositive of this claim whether styled as seeking restitutionary or
`injunctive relief. Moreover, Plaintiff would not be entitled to restitution because she alleges that
`she lost money to a third party but does not allege that Apple benefited, and would not be entitled
`to an injunction because she lacks Article III standing. Additionally, this claim is time barred.
`The Tenth Claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed
`because much of the alleged conduct is not outrageous as a matter of law and the remaining alleged
`conduct does not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard or was deemed inadequate in the May 20 Order.
`The Eleventh Claim for private nuisance based on the alleged activities of Apple’s
`facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard should be dismissed because it is time barred.
`The Twelfth Claim for ultrahazardous activities, also based on the alleged activities
`of Apple’s facility at 3250 Scott Boulevard, should be dismissed both because it is time barred and
`because Plaintiff does not allege any ultrahazardous activities as a matter of law.
`The Thirteenth Claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on a
`fear of cancer is time barred, and in any event, Plaintiff does not allege the intent element.
`In addition, Apple moves to dismiss the following retaliation-based claims which are not
`adequately pled and/or are not legally cognizable:
`The Second Claim under Labor Code section 1102.53 should be dismissed in part to
`the extent it is based on alleged complaints about smuggling or sanctions violations because
`Plaintiff was not granted leave to introduce this new theory and, regardless, she does not identify
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`3 All references to the “Labor Code” are to California Labor Code unless otherwise noted.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- 2 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 11 of 33
`
`™
`
`™
`
`™
`
`any predicate statute she contends was violated, as is legally required to state a claim. The Second
`Claim should also be dismissed in part to the extent that Plaintiff continues to allege that she
`complained about violations of entire statutory frameworks as opposed to specific statutes.
`Moreover, the Second Claim should be dismissed in part, to the extent it seeks civil penalties and
`is therefore time barred.4
`The Fourth Claim under the Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act
`(“HSITA”) should be dismissed because Plaintiff was not granted leave to add it and, in any event,
`her alleged complaints did not concern “hazardous substances” within the meaning of HSITA.
`The Fifth Claim under Labor Code section 98.6 should be dismissed in part to the
`extent it seeks civil penalties and is therefore time barred.
`The Sixth Claim should be dismissed in part to the extent it asserts violations of
`Labor Code sections 232.5, 1101, and 1102 predicated on concerns allegedly raised about
`Palestinian and Muslim rights and an alleged article about working conditions for Uyghurs because
`not only was Plaintiff not granted leave to add this claim, but she also fails to allege a disclosure
`under Section 232.5, she fails to allege a “rule, regulation, or policy” under Section 1101, and she
`fails to allege that Apple threatened to discharge her if she did not adopt a particular course of
`political activity, as is required under Section 1102. Additionally, the Sixth Claim should be
`dismissed in part to the extent it asserts violations of Sections 232 and 232.5 predicated on
`Plaintiff’s alleged disclosure of her wages because Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that Apple
`knew about her alleged disclosure.
`The Seventh Claim under Labor Code section 96(k) fails because there is no private
`right of action under that statute.
`The Eighth Claim for breach of implied covenant should be dismissed to the extent
`that it relies on newly alleged theories Plaintiff did not have leave to introduce. Further, this claim
`should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to identify any underlying contract or term that would
`support any implied covenant that Apple allegedly breached by terminating Plaintiff.
`
`™
`
`™
`
`4 Courts can dismiss only a portion of, or one of several theories alleged in, a single claim. See,
`e.g., Lopez v. Wachovia Mortg., 2009 WL 4505919, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009).
`Alternatively, Apple is separately moving to strike portions of the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Claims.
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- 3 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 12 of 33
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS5
`Plaintiff worked for Apple from February 2015 until Apple terminated her employment in
`September 2021. 4AC ¶8. Apple told her it was terminating her employment because she disclosed
`confidential product-related information and failed to cooperate in an investigation. See id. ¶¶132-
`33. Plaintiff contends the termination was in retaliation for raising concerns to government agencies
`and others. See, e.g., id. ¶2.
`Beginning in 2017, Complainant worked at an Apple office located at 825 Stewart Drive in
`Sunnyvale, California (“825 Stewart”). Id. ¶47. The office building is located on the TRW
`Microwave Superfund site, which is monitored and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection
`Agency (“EPA”) and for which Northrup Grumman—not Apple—is the statutorily defined
`Responsible Party. See id. ¶¶47, 49. In March 2021, Apple emailed Plaintiff and other Apple
`employees about an upcoming test for potential vapor intrusion at the office where Plaintiff was
`assigned to work. Id. ¶55. In the following months, Plaintiff expressed safety concerns about vapor
`intrusion, both internally and to various government entities, including the EPA. See, e.g., id. ¶¶55,
`59. She contends that she came to believe that a fainting spell that she had experienced in the office
`in 2019 was due to vapor intrusion. See id. ¶63.
`Plaintiff further claims that in 2015 Apple began operating a facility at 3250 Scott
`Boulevard in Santa Clara, California (the “Scott building”) that allegedly vented gases near an
`apartment complex where Plaintiff lived in 2020. Id. ¶¶26-28. She contends that shortly after she
`moved into the apartment complex she fell ill and went on short-term disability. Id. ¶¶31-32. She
`claims that in 2023 she came to believe her illness was due to gases from the Apple facility near
`her former apartment. See id. ¶¶4, 149.
`
`5 For purposes of this Motion only and as required under the Rules, Apple recites Plaintiff’s factual
`allegations as if they were true, even though they are not. Given the procedural posture of this
`Motion, Apple will not present any additional or contrary facts regarding Plaintiff’s employment,
`her termination, or her claims in this case; at the appropriate time, Apple will present its defense.
`Moreover, the Fourth Amended Complaint contains numerous irrelevant allegations, which Apple
`does not summarize here and is concurrently moving to strike.
`
`4132-9795-6945
`
`- 4 -
`
`APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4AC
`CASE NO. 23-CV-4597-EMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 78 Filed 07/15/24 Page 13 of 33
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Amendments Not Authorized by the May 20 Order Should Be Dismissed.
`A party in federal court is permitted to amend its pleading “once as a matter of course”
`within specified times frames; other amendments are permitted “only with the opposing party’s
`consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), (2). A “procedural problem” arises where a
`litigant attempts to add new claims or theories that are “outside the scope of the amendment
`permitted by the prior dismissal order.” Coppola v. Smith, 19 F. Supp. 3d 960, 971 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
`The appropriate remedy is to strike or dismiss unauthorized new claims. See Benton v. Baker
`Hughes, 2013 WL 3353636, at *2-*3, (C. D. Cal. June 30, 2013) (citing cases).
`Plaintiff’s 4AC goes well beyond the specific and limited leave the Court afforded in the
`May 20 Order; in fact, despite having had multiple claims dismissed with prejudice (see May 20
`Order at 46-47) and having declined to re-plead multiple others (see 4AC ¶6), the 4AC still runs 74
`pages (just one page shorter than the Third Amended Complaint). This is in significant part due to
`the fact that Plaintiff has attempted to add new theories and claims absent from the Third Amended
`Complaint and not authorized by the leave granted by the Court on May 20—to wit:
`™ New theories in support of her Second Claim under Labor Code section 1102.5,
`untethered to either “the Gobbler application” or “environmental and safety violations”
`(compare May 20 Order at 35 with 4AC ¶168 at 50:26-28);
`™ An entirely new Fourth Claim for alleged whistleblower retaliation under the Hazard
`Substances Information and Training Act (“HSITA”) (4AC ¶¶175-76);
`™ A patchworked Sixth Claim comprised of new theories of alleged retaliation under
`Labor Code sections 232 and 232.5 as well new alleged statutory violations under Labor
`Code sections 1101 and 1102 (id. ¶¶181, 183-84);
`™ New theories for her Eighth Claim for breach of implied covenant (id. ¶¶189-91); and
`™ A UCL claim now entirely devoted to sweeping allegations that Apple unlawfully
`forced employees to participate in “health, anatomy, and personal data collection
`studies” and dropping the lone theory she was permitted to amend (related to “Apple’s
`establi