Pattison v. HP Inc.

Background

Mary Pattison alleged that HP misdescribed its HP Care Pack program, including by representing that a customer would receive a full rebate after the three-year contractual period if the customer had not used any services. She sought relief based on HP’s alleged failure to pay her a $184.99 rebate, as well as an injunction prohibiting HP from making similar website misrepresentations. She also asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and pursued class allegations.

HP moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns issues such as standing and mootness; Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim. HP also asked the court to strike the class allegations under Rule 23(d).

Standing and Mootness

The court held that Pattison had standing to seek relief based on not receiving the $184.99 rebate because standing is evaluated when the complaint is filed, and HP did not tender the money until after the original complaint was filed.

The court held that Pattison lacked standing to seek an injunction barring future misrepresentations about HP Care Packs. She did not allege a desire to purchase the product in the future. The court therefore granted HP’s motion to dismiss that portion of the requested relief.

The court rejected HP’s argument that its tender of $184.99 made the case moot. The court treated the unaccepted tender as functionally equivalent to an unaccepted offer and concluded that it did not moot the proposed class action.

Breach of Contract

The court granted dismissal of Pattison’s breach-of-contract claim. It found that the HP Care Pack Support Terms did not contain a provision giving a customer who used no services during the three-year period a right to a rebate. The court also found that Pattison did not plead facts showing that language on HP’s website constituted an offer that she accepted. In addition, the Support Terms contained an integration clause stating that they superseded prior communications or agreements.

Fraud

The court granted dismissal of the portion of the fraud claim based on HP’s alleged failure to perform a contractual promise to pay a full rebate, because the contract contained no such promise.

The court denied dismissal of the portion of the fraud claim based on Pattison’s alleged reliance on the website’s description of the HP Care Pack when she purchased a personal computer and paid extra for the Care Pack.

California Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claim

The court denied dismissal of Pattison’s California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim. It held that advance notice to HP was not required because Pattison sought injunctive relief. It also rejected HP’s argument that the claim should be dismissed because Pattison allegedly identified the wrong county in her declaration. HP offered no evidence that Pattison’s statement about conducting regular and sustained business in San Mateo County was incorrect, and both San Mateo County and Santa Clara County are within the Northern District of California.

Class Allegations

The court denied HP’s request to strike the class allegations. It rejected HP’s arguments that the proposed class was overbroad because it did not exclude customers whose Care Packs lacked a risk-free rebate, customers who did not register their Care Packs, or customers whose claims might be subject to a one-year contractual limitations period. The court found that the complaint did not plead that a registration requirement or contractual rebate right existed, and that the one-year limitation applied to delivery of support services while Pattison’s claims were not based on a failure to provide support services.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part HP’s motion to dismiss. It granted dismissal of Pattison’s claim for an injunction prohibiting website misrepresentations, her breach-of-contract claim, and the portion of her fraud claim based on failure to perform contractual obligations. In all other respects, it denied the motion.

The court allowed Pattison to file a Second Amended Complaint by October 25, 2024, to cure the identified deficiencies. She could not add new claims or defendants without first obtaining the court’s permission. If she did not timely amend, the action would proceed on the remaining claims.