Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
771 F. Supp. 2d 1138
| N.D. Cal. | 2010Background
- Pl. Kowalsky sues HP over alleged defects in HP OfficeJet Pro 8500 all-in-one printers.
- Plaintiff alleges a design defect causes random page skips during copy/scan/fax with the 50-page ADF.
- Plaintiff purchased July 2, 2009 after researching HP specifications on HP and third-party sites.
- HP allegedly marketed the 8500 as capable of 34 ppm color/35 ppm black-and-white with a 50-page ADF.
- Plaintiff received two HP replacements, both with the same defect, then bought a non-HP printer.
- Five claims: UCL, FAL, CLRA, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCL/FAL/CLRA claims satisfy Rule 9(b). | Kowalsky pleads time/place/content of misrepresentations. | HP argues lack of particularity and knowledge grounds defeat claims. | Rule 9(b) satisfied for fraud-based claims. |
| Whether HP knew of the defect pre-purchase. | Complaints on HP site show HP knowledge before purchase. | Pre-purchase complaints insufficient to show knowledge. | Knowledge allegations insufficient to prove prior knowledge at purchase for some claims. |
| Whether CLRA claims survive disclosure/knowledge limitations and support UCL unlawful/fraudulent claims. | Misrepresentations about characteristics/benefits violate CLRA § 1770(a)(5). | Other CLRA provisions lack adequacy; need more specificity on some sections. | CLRA § 1770(a)(5) claim survives; others dismissed. |
| Whether FAL claim can survive without knowledge showing. | HP's misleading speed/capacity statements misled consumers. | No sufficient pleading of HP knowledge or intent to mislead. | FAL claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Whether breach of express warranty claim can proceed given notices and refunds. | HP failed to honor warranty and replace/refund defective printers. | Disclaimers and failure to request refund bar claim; replacement attempts lack notice. | Breach of express warranty dismissed with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2009) (fraud claims under UCL/CLRA require heightened pleading)
- Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.2007) (need for specificity in fraud allegations)
- Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.2008) (reasonable consumer standard for deception)
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (unlawful prong allows borrowing violations from other laws)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App.2006) (fraud-like elements in UCL claims; deception standards)
- Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal.2007) (internet complaints may show knowledge of defect)
- Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc., 59 Cal. App. 4th 965 (Cal. Ct. App.1997) (strict-liability-like view for deceptive practices; unintentional disclosure context)
- Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir.2007) (unfair prong tethering vs balancing in consumer actions)