Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3174
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wilson bought an HP Pavilion Notebook in 2004; by late 2006, after warranty expired, his laptop showed low power warnings and would not hold charge.
- HP informed Wilson in 2006 that warranty had expired and offered a motherboard replacement for a fee; Wilson instead paid $150 locally to repair the power jack, but power issues persisted.
- Wilson learned of a class action concerning similar HP laptops but his model was not included in the settlement.
- In 2009 Wilson filed a putative class action in California state court alleging concealment of a latent defect and CLRA/UCL violations; HP removed to federal court, which dismissed with leave to amend.
- The second amended complaint added Kruschen, who experienced a fiery incident in 2008 related to the laptop’s power jack; HP refused to repair or compensate.
- The district court dismissed the second amended complaint, concluding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable safety defect or HP knowledge of the defect; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disclose and materiality under CLRA/UCL | HP owed a disclosure duty for a material latent defect. | Duty to disclose is limited to safety concerns or affirmative misrepresentation; no duty here absent safety issue. | Court agreed the duty to disclose is limited; materiality tied to safety concerns. |
| Causation between alleged defect and safety hazard | Design defect in power jack causes overheating and fires during normal use. | Plaintiffs fail to plausibly connect the weakened/failed power connection to ignition. | Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a nexus between the defect and a safety hazard. |
| HP's knowledge of defect at time of sale | HP had extensive notice from testing data and prior lawsuits evidencing a defect. | Allegations rely on undated or post-purchase complaints; no specific pre-sale knowledge shown. | The complaint did not sufficiently allege HP knew of the defect at the time of sale. |
| Materiality standard under Falk and related authority | Material information need not relate to safety to be material under CLRA. | Materiality in this context requires safety-related or other legally cognizable material facts. | Court treated materiality as linked to safety concerns; Falk's approach not controlling here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (UCL breadth; omissions treated as unlawful when tied to underlying violations)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (duty to disclose limited to safety or affirmative misrepresentation)
- Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 322 F. App’x 619 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal interpretation of CLRA duty to disclose; safety-related emphasis)
- In re Sony HDTV Litigation, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (materiality and safety considerations in CLRA/UCL claims)
- Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (materiality and exclusive knowledge considerations in CLRA/UCL claims)
- O'Shea v. Epson Am., Inc., No. CV 09-8063 PSG (CWx), 2011 WL 3299936 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (discusses scope of safety-related disclosure duty; distinguishable facts)