This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
False Advertising

Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Hewlett Packard Company

Published: Oct. 29, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 1, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:15-cv-01221-BRO-GJS Bench Decision –  Defense in Part

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Adrian R. Bacon
(Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC)

Todd M. Friedman
(Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC)


Defendant

Marshall L.B. Baker
(Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP)

Erin E. McCracken
(Berger & Hipskind LLP)

Michael J. Stortz
(K&L Gates LLP)


Facts

Anne Wolf filed a consumer class action against Hewlett Packard Co., involving HP's LaserJet Pro P1102w.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant's printer was allegedly advertised as being equipped with HP Smart install, a feature of convenience that would allow consumers to "start printing right away with effortless setup" and without the use of a CD. The product's packaging was also allegedly labeled that the printers were so equipped. However, when plaintiff purchased the product, she found out that, the feature was disabled by default and that she had issues with connecting and installing the printer. Defendant allegedly disabled the feature when Windows 8 had issues recognizing the Smart Install feature. However, defendant did not change the product labels to indicate that it had done so. Plaintiff then filed this action alleging causes of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Additionally, plaintiff moved for nationwide class certification, as well as for class certification on behalf of a California Subclass.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The court denied nationwide class certification and limited class certification to the California subclass. The court granted class certification as to the California subclass, on behalf of all consumers who purchased a P1102 model printer at a physical retail location in California, between April 2014 and present, and whose printer was advertised as including the Smart Install Feature, when in fact the feature had been disabled

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 22, 2015.


#87005

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390