950 F. Supp. 2d 1123
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff purchased an HP Pavilion Slimline s5305z on June 10, 2010 via HP's website; opted for a higher-end graphics card marketed as upgraded.
- AMD recommended a 300-watt or greater power supply for that graphics card, but the Slimline had a 220-watt PSU.
- HP did not inform Plaintiff of AMD's higher power requirement nor offer an upgrade at purchase.
- Plaintiff alleges the 220-watt PSU caused malfunctions (freezes, restarts, shutdowns) and eventual damage within the warranty period.
- Approximately 17 months after purchase, the computer shorted out, melted, and was damaged; Plaintiff claimed the insufficient PSU caused these problems.
- Plaintiff seeks a nationwide class for those who bought HP computers with PSUs lower than the required wattage for their configurations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express warranty claim survives against HP. | Power-supply insufficiency caused malfunctions within the warranty period. | No actionable defect within the one-year warranty; latent defect not shown. | Express warranty claim survives; sufficient allegations to show malfunction within warranty period. |
| Whether Song-Beverly Act applies given timing of malfunctions. | Malfunctions within the warranty period render the product unfit for ordinary use. | Act requires timely disclosure; post-sale timing may limit applicability. | Song-Beverly claim survives for purposes of motion to dismiss. |
| Whether CLRA/FAL/UCL/common-law fraud claims based on affirmative misrepresentations or omissions survive. | HP advertised power and performance beyond actual specs; omissions alleged. | Statements are puffery; not actionable; omissions insufficiently alleged. | Affirmative-misrepresentation and related fraud claims dismissed with prejudice; some omissions claims dismissed but leave to amend possible for warranty-period omissions. |
| Whether omissions outside warranty period require safety concerns to be actionable. | Omissions during warranty period can be material without safety concerns. | Outside-warranty omissions require safety concerns or affirmative misrepresentation. | Post-warranty omissions dismissed for lack of safety nexus; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether UCL unlawful/unfair prongs can be maintained based on warranties. | Warranties and related acts support unlawful/unfair conduct. | Contractual duties do not themselves constitute unlawful conduct; need additional basis. | Unlawful prong dismissed with leave to amend; unfair prong dismissed without prejudice but may be amended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. App. 2006) (express warranty coverage and reliance standards; defect causation within warranty period)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. App. 2010) (reliance not required for express warranty breach; use of warranties in analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard for plausibility; reject bare conclusions)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (false advertising; reasonable consumer standard for FAL/UCL/CLRA)
- Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 10-CV-02176, 2011 WL 3501715 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (knowledge allegations must have plausible basis; not mere speculation)
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (duty to disclose; safety nexus post-warranty; distinction between warranty-period and post-warranty claims)
- Ford Motor Co., 749 F.Supp.2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (safety-concern requirement for omission claims outside warranty period; duty to disclose)
- Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. App. 2006) (guidance on misrepresentation and deceptive practices elements)