Last week, the class action lawsuit alleging defects in two Hewlett-Packard Co. printer models was dismissed for a second time by a California federal judge citing deadlines or insufficiently pleaded claims.
Lead plaintiffs Vincent Ferranti and Carlos Martinho allege in their class action lawsuit that HP’s Officejet Pro 8500 and 8600 model printers were not able to connect wirelessly with laptop or tablet computers due to a faulty transceiver.
According to the class action lawsuit, HP either knew or should have known about the connectivity issue by April 2009, but the computer company actively concealed the problem from consumers and continued to sell these printers without warning consumers that the printer’s wireless function was defective and would fail with normal use.
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the class action lawsuit for a second time last week. Judge Davila dismissed the HP printer class action lawsuit initially last September, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to address problems with the statute of limitations on the claims and inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ arguments.
Last week, Judge Davila found that the amended pleadings had failed to address the problems with the statute of limitations. Judge Davila pointed out that according to court documents, one of the class action plaintiffs had reason to believe as late as September 2009, and the other by January of 2010, that their printer that might contain a defect and that was when the window for them to bring a claim opened.
Under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the plaintiffs’ claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the judge pointed out that the claims were also time-barred under the New York and Arizona business law regulations which have a similar limitations period.
As a result, Judge Davila dismissed the class action claims brought under CLRA and other business law regulations because it would be “futile” to allow these claims to remain in a third amended complaint given the fact that the plaintiffs were unable to overcome time-barred deficiencies from the first.
Judge Davila noted that the plaintiffs’ claims under the Unfair Competition Law had been timely filed, but found that the evidence did not sufficiently show that HP knew of the purported defects at the time of the plaintiffs’ purchases. Additionally, the judge found that HP did not have a duty to disclose the defect because HP did not have exclusive knowledge of an issue that the plaintiffs didn’t know about, nor did the alleged defect pose any safety concern to the customers.
Additionally, the class action claims for breach of warranty were dismissed by Judge Davila because the plaintiffs failed to show that they had requested a refund or replacement printer from HP.
“While plaintiffs allege that HP’s attempt to repair the printers through troubleshooting was ineffective, they also allege that they were able to exchange their printers and at least Mr. Ferranti was offered a discount off a new printer,” pointed out the judge in the order dismissing the HP printer class action lawsuit. “Because plaintiffs fail to clearly allege how HP breached its one-year warranty, HP’s motion to dismiss this claim is granted.”
Ferranti is represented by Michael A. Caddell, Cory S. Fein and Cynthia B. Chapman of Caddell & Chapman.
The HP Printer Class Action Lawsuit is Vincent Ferranti v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 5:13-cv-03847, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2015 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
The post HP Printer Class Action Lawsuit Doomed Again appeared first on Top Class Actions.

Great blog! I really love how it is easy on my eyes and the information are well written.
ReplyDelete123.hp.com/ojpro8217