Pattison v. HP Inc.

Background

Mary Pattison’s Third Amended Complaint asserted two causes of action against HP Inc.: fraud and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Her claims were based on allegations that she and HP entered into HP Care Pack Support Terms and that she relied on statements on HP’s website indicating that a customer who did not use the covered services would receive a full refund at the end of the three-year contract period.

Pattison alleged that she did not use the services, applied for a rebate after the contract ended, and received no response for several months. She also alleged difficulty finding a webpage or telephone number to follow up on the rebate. Her claimed damages included the cost of computer equipment and the Care Pack, lost benefit of the bargain, lost time and opportunity costs associated with registering the Care Pack and obtaining rebates, delayed refunds, and nominal damages.

HP’s Motion

HP moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That procedure permits a party to seek judgment after the pleadings are closed when the pleadings show that no material factual issue remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

HP made two arguments. First, it argued that Pattison could not recover damages based on time spent trying to find a working website or telephone number while seeking a rebate. HP characterized those damages as nominal. Second, HP argued that Pattison lacked standing to represent proposed class members who never submitted rebate requests because those people had no claim for a delayed rebate check.

Lost-Time and Opportunity-Cost Damages

The court held that California law does not provide nominal damages for fraud or a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court considered decisions treating the value of time and effort spent pursuing certain applications or remedies as nominal damages.

Pattison argued that those decisions did not apply because she alleged that HP misrepresented the services it sold and concealed material information. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the cited decisions involved fraud claims and were based on the nature of the damages, not on an absence of a sufficiently pleaded false statement.

The court therefore granted HP judgment to the extent Pattison’s claims were based on lost time and opportunity costs associated with her attempt to obtain a refund.

Claims Involving Class Members Who Did Not Apply for Rebates

The proposed class was defined as individuals and entities residing within the United States and its territories who purchased computer equipment and a Care Pack from HP covering that equipment and did not experience a service event involving the equipment for three years after purchase.

HP argued that Pattison could not represent proposed class members who never applied for a rebate. The court disagreed based on the class definition and Pattison’s damages theory. The class was not limited to people who submitted rebate requests. Under Pattison’s theory, people who did not apply could still claim losses such as the cost of their computer equipment and Care Packs, and they allegedly shared the same injury from HP’s conduct.

Looking only at the record then before it, the court found that the interests of people who did not apply for a rebate were fairly encompassed within Pattison’s claims. It held that HP had not shown that those class members’ claims were subject to dismissal. The court also stated that it would not consider an additional argument HP raised for the first time in its reply brief.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part HP’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. It granted the motion for claims based on time and opportunity allegedly lost while Pattison attempted to obtain a rebate. In all other respects, the motion was denied.