311 F.R.D. 568
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Nad Karim purchased a customizable HP laptop from HP’s website (Nov. 22, 2010) and alleges HP’s online "help me decide" (HMD) description promised wireless cards that operated on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz (or 802.11a), but his delivered Intel Centrino-N 1000 card operated only on 2.4 GHz.
- Karim sued on behalf of similarly situated buyers, asserting breach of express warranty and a CLRA claim; certification sought only for the express warranty claim for a California-only class of purchasers (Jan 1, 2010–Apr 11, 2011) whose computers shipped to California and whose wireless cards lacked the promised functionality.
- Court previously denied nationwide certification for failure to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance because of choice-of-law conflicts; plaintiff narrowed the class to California purchasers to address that defect.
- Defendant argued predominance fails because plaintiffs must prove "exposure" (or reliance) to the online HMD statements and offered a post-hoc survey and website tracking data to show most class members were not exposed.
- Court found California express-warranty law (Cal. Com. Code § 2313) does not require proof of individual reliance; under Weinstat, exposure means the statement was made available to purchasers (not that they actually read it).
- The court rejected defendant’s survey and website-tracking evidence as unreliable and not the "clear affirmative proof" required to show representations were taken out of the bargain, and therefore certified the California class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions predominate (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Predominance is met because class members were presented with the same HMD language during the class period and received nonconforming wireless cards | Predominance fails because many class members were not exposed to the HMD statements, so individualized issues (exposure/interpretation) will predominate | Held: Predominance satisfied; exposure means statement was made available and defendant failed to provide clear affirmative proof otherwise |
| Whether reliance (or exposure) is an element of express-warranty under California law | Karim: reliance is not an element; §2313 makes seller statements part of the basis of the bargain absent seller proof otherwise | HP: plaintiffs must show exposure (or reliance) to prove the statement became part of the bargain | Held: Reliance need not be proven; exposure requires availability (not actual reading); seller bears burden to prove statement was not part of the bargain |
| Rule 23(a) factors (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) | Class meets numerosity (~42,000 CA purchasers), common core of facts, typicality, and adequate representation | HP contested commonality/adequacy based on survey results and counsel’s choices (e.g., not certifying CLRA) | Held: All Rule 23(a) factors satisfied; criticisms of counsel and dropped CLRA damages/options did not render representative inadequate |
| Ascertainability/superiority/overbreadth | Plaintiff: class limited by product list, time window, California shipping address, and nonconforming cards—ascertainable and superior to individual actions | HP: Class overbroad/unenforceable because it cannot determine which purchasers actually saw HMD or customized their wireless card; survey shows many did not expect dual-band | Held: Class ascertainable as defined; superiority satisfied; defendant’s evidence insufficient to defeat class on these grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court must conduct a rigorous analysis under Rule 23)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (party seeking certification bears burden to show Rule 23 requirements)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (2010) (seller statements included in basis of bargain where made available; actual reading not required)
- Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104 (1975) (discussing effect of Cal. Com. Code § 2313 and elimination of reliance requirement)
- Burr v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682 (1954) (historical discussion of warranty elements and predecessor statute)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2013) (commonality requires only a single common question)
- Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickel, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (common core of factual or legal issues supports commonality)