HP Mischaracterized, Ignored Claims in Motion to Dismiss Trackpad Lawsuit: Plaintiffs
HP’s motion to dismiss a fraud case over defective track pads in its Omen laptop computers is "the latest step in its campaign to sweep consumer complaints about the Defect under the rug,” said plaintiffs Justin Davis and Gary Davis’ response (docket 4:23-cv-02114) Tuesday to HP’s June motion to dismiss (see 2307030008) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
HP said in its motion to dismiss that plaintiffs lack standing, “mischaracterizing their misrepresentation claims and completely ignoring their omission claims,” said the response. Plaintiffs do have standing, they said, because they “reasonably relied on Defendant’s false representations that the Products were fit for their intended use,” it said. They also relied on HP’s “omission of the fact that the Products suffered from the Defect and were therefore unusable as laptop computers.”
HP “attacks Plaintiffs’ statutory claims with the kitchen sink,” said the plaintiffs' response. HP rehashed its “failed claim” that plaintiffs didn’t allege reliance, when they adequately did so both on HP’s misrepresentations and its omissions, the response said. The motion “mischaracterizes” plaintiffs’ “false representations claims” as being about HP’s marketing “puffery” when the complaint makes clear that the false representations at issue are that the products are fit for their intended use as laptop computers, it said.
In its motion, HP tried “fabricating two novel pleading requirements,” said the response: that plaintiffs must allege false representations about the track pads specifically and that they must have “access to and allege the proprietary information underlying the Defect.” Neither standard is supported by law, the response said. HP argued plaintiffs failed to allege the company had knowledge of the defect, “when the applicable standard is whether HP knew or should have known,” and plaintiffs adequately alleged that, they said.
The company said plaintiffs have no omission claim because it had no duty to disclose to Omen purchasers that they were buying products “unfit for use as laptop computers,” said the response. HP had a duty to disclose that because it had exclusive knowledge of the defect and it made “partial representations” that led buyers to believe the laptops were fit for use, it said.
On HP’s attempt to dismiss warranty claims, saying it made no express warranties and plaintiffs were made no implied warranties for lack of privity, that's “doubly wrong,” plaintiffs said. Their complaint “adequately sets out HP’s false representations" and plaintiffs’ reliance "sufficient to maintain their express warranty claims," it said. Their implied warranty claims survive dismissal because they're third-party beneficiaries, making them an exception to the privity rule, it said.
Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief should survive dismissal because plaintiffs lack a remedy for their threat of future harm, adequately pleaded inadequate legal remedies at this stage of litigation, and properly pleaded their claims for unjust enrichment in the alternative, the response said. HP’s “premature and meritless arguments regarding choice of law and class standing should be rejected,” they said. Plaintiffs should be permitted to maintain a national class for their common law claims under California law and be permitted to represent all proposed class members with “substantially similar products,” it said.