A California Federal Court Dismisses Computer Class Action
In Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2009 WL 3021240 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2009), the court packed a lot of legal issues into a short opinion.
The plaintiff brought a putative class action, claiming that HP's laptop computers have a defect in the power jack's attachment to the motherboard that causes the solder connection to be interrupted, resulting in the ultimate failure of the laptops. Initially, plaintiff brought the putative class action in state court alleging that an "abnormally high" number of such laptops were defective, and representing that the individual class members' claims were under $75,000 and that the aggregate liability was under $5 million. Subsequently, they amended the complaint to allege that all HP laptops of certain models had the defect. HP removed to federal court under CAFA 129 days after the filing of the original complaint, and plaintiff moved to remand. The court retained jurisdiction, finding that HP had been justified in relying upon the monetary allegations in the initial complaint to refrain from investigating whether the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.
The court also granted defendant's motion to dismiss, giving plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs had pled three causes of action: California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and breach of warranty.
The court held that the allegations at issue did not impose upon the defendant any duty to disclose under the CLRA, noting that the alleged defect did not involve a risk of physical injury.
It also held that the allegations were insufficient to state a UCL claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Although the complaint alleged violation of ten statutory prohibitions, it gave no facts as to how those prohibitions were violated. Moreover, the court held that the following statements were non-actionable puffery: that laptops are designed to "'perform . . . flawlessly,'" that they provide "'easy-to-use technology'" and that they "'enable greater mobility and resource sharing within homes or small offices.'" Id. at *2.
The court also held that the breach of warranty claim failed because plaintiff's computer failed after the running of the two-year warranty period. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that a two-year warranty period was unconscionable.
One disappointing bit of dictum in the Wilson decision is the court's statement that, at the pleading stage, California's UCL constitutionally could apply to the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs because the defendant's actions and representations are alleged to have emanated from California. The decision, however, engages in no conflict of laws analysis and fails to consider any of the large number of decisions that refuse to apply the law of the defendant's residence to facilitate a class action.
