Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41337
| N.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Kowalsky, on behalf of himself and others, sues Hewlett-Packard over the HP Office Jet Pro 8500 Printer.
- Plaintiff alleges a design defect causes the 50-sheet ADF to skip pages, reducing copying/scanning speed and reliability.
- Plaintiff asserts five claims: UCL, FAL, CLRA, express warranty, and implied warranty of merchantability.
- Court’s December 13, 2010 order partially granted HP’s motion to dismiss, dismissing FAL and portions of UCL/CLRA, but allowing some UCL/CLRA claims for relief based on knowledge not required by theory.
- HP moves for reconsideration; the Court grants reconsideration, vacates the prior denial of UCL/CLRA claims, and dismisses them with leave to amend.
- Plaintiff must file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge requirement for fraudulent UCL | Kowalsky argues no knowledge showing is required for fraudulent UCL. | HP contends knowledge of the defect at the time of p yritties is required. | Fraudulent UCL claim dismissed for lack of knowledge; leave to amend. |
| CLRA and its relation to UCL fraudulent prong | CLRA claim should survive with same standard as fraudulent UCL. | CLRA requires knowledge of the defect; unsupported without it. | CLRA claim dismissed; unlawful UCL prong tied to CLRA dismissed; leave to amend. |
| Unlawful prong of the UCL | Unlawful prong supported by CLRA violations. | Without a viable CLRA claim, unlawful UCL fails. | Unlawful prong dismissed with CLRA; leave to amend possible. |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to plead knowledge. | Amendment should be permitted only if facts show knowledge or reason to know. | Leave to amend granted for fraudulent UCL and CLRA/unlawful UCL claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (standing and reliance requirements for UCL)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal.Ct.App.2006) (UCL strict liability concept; no need for tort elements)
- Paduano v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 1453 (Cal.Ct.App.2009) (knowledge of facts rendering statements misleading supports UCL liability)
- In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.2006) (UCL coverage and strict liability notions in California)
- Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc., 59 Cal.App.4th 965 (Cal.Ct.App.1997) (unwitting distribution not deceptive under fraudulent UCL)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal.2010) (analyzing UCL/CLRA claims together in product-defect context)