Christopher O'Shea v. Epson America, Inc.
2:09-cv-08063
C.D. Cal.Jul 29, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue Epson entities in a putative class action alleging omission and misrepresentation about ink yields and printer performance.
- Epson tests yields under ISO continuous-printing standards and discloses that yields vary with usage and environmental conditions.
- Disclosures warn that real-life yields may differ and encourage independent sources for comparison.
- Plaintiffs purchased Epson models Artisan 800, Workforce 310, and Stylus NX200, reporting high ink consumption and switching to HP.
- Court grants summary judgment on omission-based CLRA/UCL/FAL claims but denies on Rogers’ affirmative misrepresentation; common-law fraud claim left for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disclose under CLRA/UCL/FAL | Oestreicher/Grisham-like duty to disclose material facts implied | No affirmative duty to disclose competitor performance absent safety/defect | Omission duty not established; summary judgment for Epson on omission claims |
| Materiality of NX200 packaging statement | Statement misleads about printing with needed cartridges | Literal truth precludes misrepresentation | Jury to decide materiality; not summary judgment on Rogers’ claim |
| Injury for misrepresentation claim | Reliance on mislabeled product caused economic injury | No cognizable injury if entire cartridge set needed anyway | Injury issue survives for Rogers’ misrepresentation claim; not decided on summary judgment |
| Affirmative misrepresentation of NX packaging | Statement misleads about printing while one cartridge missing | Statement is true and not misleading | Rogers’ claim viable; summary judgment denied on this basis |
| Common-law fraud viability | Concealment of information supports fraud | Duty to disclose same as CLRA/UCL/FAL omissions | Not fully addressed; court declines to grant summary judgment on Rogers’ common-law fraud claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (duty to disclose under CLRA/UCL requires awareness of material facts or safety)
- Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 322 F. App’x 489 (9th Cir. 2009) (no affirmative duty to disclose product defects absent safety concerns)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (material misrepresentation evaluated by reasonable consumer)