1234567Trenton R. Kashima (SBN 291405)
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSONPHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (714) 651-8845
tkashima@milberg.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT9NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

GARY FREUND and WAYNE
MCMATH, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

HP, INC. d/b/a HP COMPUTING AND
PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation,

16
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTIONCOMPLAINT FOR:
1. Fraudulent Omission;
2. Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, etseq.;
3. Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq.;
4. Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17500, et seq.;
5. Violations of Minnesota’s Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §325D.44, et seq.;
6. Violations of Minnesota’s False
Advertising Law, Minn. Stat. §325F.67, et seq.;
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1Plaintiffs Gary Freund and Wayne McMath, individually and on behalf of all others

2similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, bring this class action

3

lawsuit against Defendant HP, Inc. d/b/a HP Computing and Printing Inc. (“HP” or “Defendant”).

4

Plaintiffs allege the following upon information and belief based on the investigation of counsel,

5

except as to those allegations that specifically pertain to Plaintiffs, which are alleged upon

6

personal knowledge.
INTRODUCTION

7
8

1.

Printer ink—which can exceed $80 an ounce—is more expensive than many

9cherished luxury items including silver, caviar and champagne. See Lamont Wood, Printer Ink:

10

Tired of Feeding the Cash Cow? InkJet refills typically cost significantly more than the printer11

itself, COMPUTERWORLD, (Mar. 28, 2012), available at https://www.computerworld.com

12/article/2503134/printer-ink--tired-of-feeding-the-cash-cow-.html (last visited Dec. 6, 2021).

13

2.

The not-so-hidden secret in the retail printer industry is that manufacturers like

14

HP are very willing to lose money on the sale of printers in order to force consumers to purchase

15

incredibly over-priced ink cartridges in perpetuity. For instance, a consumer can purchase an

16

HP Envy 4520 All-in-One printer that costs HP roughly $120 to build for around $70 at various

17

retailers.

18(September 15, 2018), available at https://www.consumerreports.org/printers/why-is-printer-19

ink-so-expensive-a2101590645/ (last visited Dec. 6, 2021); see also https://www.yoyoink.com

20/articles/why-is-printer-ink-expensive/ (last visited Dec. 6, 2021). Akin to the razor and blade

21

business model, consumers are incented to purchase inkjet printers with extremely low purchase22

prices provided that those “loss leader” purchases will lead to billions of dollars in ink sales.

23

3.

See Tercius Bufete, Why is Printer Ink So Expensive?, CONSUMER REPORTS

The loss leader approach is particularly acute with all-in-one printers. According

24

to HP, an All-in-One printer—also known as a Multi-Functional Printer—is a device which25

combines the capabilities of several separate devices into one machine, specifically, printing,26

scanning, copying and (depending on the model) faxing. See https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop

27/tech-takes/best-all-in-one-printers (last visited Dec. 3, 2021).

28

4.

On its website, HP boldly proclaims that “these [All-in-One] printers are

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1convenient because you don’t have to buy a separate device for each task.”

2

representations regarding the capability and functionality of its All-in-One Printers is not limited

3

to those on its website; rather, throughout its marketing and advertising, including on the product4

packaging for its All-in-One Printers, HP claims that the All-in-One Printers are multifunction,5“all-in-one”devices that can print, copy, scan and in some cases, fax documents.

6

5.

Id.

HP’s

What HP fails to disclose is that, if even one of the ink cartridges is too low,7

empty, or damaged, the scanning function on the “all-in-one” printer will be disabled and will

8

not work as advertised. None of HP’s advertising or marketing materials disclose the basic fact

9that its All-in-One Printers do not scan documents when the devices have low or empty ink

10

cartridges.

11

6.

It is well-documented that ink is not required in order to scan or to fax a document,

12

and it is certainly possible to manufacture an All-in-One printer that scans or faxes when the13device is out of ink. Indeed, HP designs its All-in-One printer products so they will not work

14

without ink. Yet, HP does not disclose this fact to consumers.

15

7.

As a result of HP’s omissions, consumers are forced to incur unexpected and16

unnecessary burden and expense in the form of ink purchases or be unable to scan or to fax

17

documents despite the fact that ink is not used to accomplish those tasks. Even were it technically18

possible to scan a document without all ink cartridges present, HP does not disclose any

19“workaround” to consumers in any of the product packaging nor in any of HP’s advertising and20

marketing materials regarding its multi-function devices. Accordingly, purchasers of HP All-21

in-One Printers have been harmed as a result of its omissions.

22

8.

HP’s intent is clear, namely, to have their multi-function devices revert to an

23

inoperable “error state” so that a large subset of those multi-function device purchasers will

24

purchase additional overpriced and unnecessary ink cartridges in order to be able to scan and to25

fax documents. The end goal is to increase the sales of one HP’s largest profit makers, ink

26

cartridges, by any and all means.

27
28

9.

Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit because HP has intentionally manipulated

the functionality of its “All-in-One” Printers in order to impermissibly increase the number of
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

3

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

ink cartridges purchased by the unsuspecting public. In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiffs

2seek, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, injunctive reliefrequiring HP to3

immediately cease its misleading advertising and marketing campaign and to engage in a4

corrective campaign to inform consumers of the misleading advertising.
THE PARTIES

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

10.

Plaintiff Gary Freund is and has been at all relevant times a resident of San

Francisco, California.
11.

Plaintiff Wayne McMath is and has been at all relevant times a resident of

Minneapolis, Minnesota.
12.

Defendant HP is a global Fortune 500 company and one of the world’s largest

manufacturers and sellers of computers.
13.

HP is incorporated in the State of Delaware and its principal place of business islocated at 1501 Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, California 94304.
14.

Defendant HP utilizes the website https://www.hp.com/us-en/home.html and its

15

related webpages (collectively, the “HP Site”), as well as third party resellers, to market and to16

sell personal computers, printers and related products directly to consumers throughout the17

United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18
19

15.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)20because there are more than 100 Class members, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds

21$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest, fees and costs and at least one Class member is a citizen of

22

a state different from at least one Defendant.

23

16.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over HP because it is headquartered in the24State of California, regularly conducts business in this District and has extensive contacts with25

this forum.

26

17.

27

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because HP isheadquartered in this District and transacts substantial business here.

28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

4

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1
2

A.

HP’s All-in-One Printers

318.

HP designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet

4

computers, monitors, printers, workstations and accessories.

5

19.

6

printing devices.

7

vendor-shares/ (last visited Dec. 3, 2021).

820.

HP has long been an industry leader in the manufacture and sale of personal inkjet
See https://www.statista.com/statistics/541347/worldwide-printer-market-

The HP ink-jet All-in-One Printer models at issue in this class action lawsuit: (i)9HP Deskjet 2755e; (ii) HP DeskJet 3755; (iii) HP DeskJet 4155e; (iv) HP ENVY 6055e; (v) HP

10

ENVY 6075; (vi) HP ENVY 6455e; (vii) HP ENVY Pro 6475; (viii) HP OfficeJet 250 Mobile;

11(ix) HP OfficeJet Pro 7740 Wide Format and (x) HP OfficeJet Pro 8025, (xi) HP DeskJet 2622,

12(xii) HP DeskJet 2655 (collectively defined herein as the “All-in-One Printers” or the13“Devices”). Each of these All-in-One Printers have the same software, which prohibits the14

printer from operating as a scan or fax machine when it is low on ink or when the ink cartridge

15

is missing.

16

21.

HP’s All-in-One Printers are devices marketed and sold as having three core17

functions: printing, copying and scanning (certain All-in-One Printers have an added fax

18

capability function that uses the same functionality as the scanner). https://www.hp.com/us-

19

en/shop/vwa/printers/prnttyp=InkJet;segm=Home,Small-Office;prnttyp=Multifunction-All-in-

20

One?orderBy=2 (last visited Dec. 3, 2021). Throughout its marketing and advertising (as21detailed below), HP promotes and promises that its All-in-One Printers provide scanning and22

faxing as main features and functions. HP markets its All-in-One printers as “incredibly

23

convenient” and “exceptional values” “[b]ecause they are designed to fit within a typical home24

office, use standard printer paper, and handle their own maintenance tasks.” Id. HP further

25

proclaims, without disclosing the fact that consumers cannot use the All-in-One Printers with26

low ink, that “these [All-in-One] printers are convenient because you don’t have to buy a separate

27

device for each task.”

28

22.

At online retail websites, such as www.hp.com and www.amazon.com, HP

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

5Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

makes available for purchase numerous printers including many All-in-One printer options. For

2each of the inkjet All-in-One Printers available for sale online, HP allows consumers to click for3

more information including technical specifications.

423.

For instance, HP advertises the HP ENVY 6455e All-in-One Printer (which it

5contends can print, copy, scan and send mobile fax) on the online retail Site amazon.com:

6

https://www.amazon.com/HP-ENVY-6455e-Wireless-Printer/dp/B08XYRDKDV (last visited

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

December 8, 2021).
24.

In addition to statements and representations on the HP Site, HP states thefunctionalities of the All-in-One Printers on the product packaging for each device. For example,
on the product packaging of the ENVY 6455e All-in-One Printer, HP represents on the boxthat the device functions as a scanner:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

6

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

HP makes the same representations for each of its All-in-One Printers available for sale and makes

2

similar representations that its products have core features that include scanning and faxing.

3

25.

For instance, HP’s DeskJet 4155e All-in-One Wireless Color Printer is identified

4

on the Amazon site as the “#1 Best Seller” in the InkJet Computer Printers category.

5

https://www.amazon.com/HP-DeskJet-4155e-Wireless-Printer/dp/B08XYRDSL7/ref=sr_1_6?cri

6d=26ONZAIIVY7X9&keywords=hp+all+in+one+printer&qid=1638547204&refinements=p_n_7feature_five_browse-bin%3A10719423011%2Cp_89%3AHP&rnid=2528832011&s=office-elect8ronics&sprefix=hp+all%2Caps%2C234&sr=1-6 (last visited December 3, 2021).

9

26.

The listing for that printer on Amazon identifies the “KEY FEATURES – Print,

10

copy and scan in color, auto document feeder, mobile fax, mobile and wireless printing.” Further,11

the images for the DeskJet 4155e All-in-One printer on Amazon do not disclose the printer does12

not work when the ink is low:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

27.

At no point does HP disclose to consumers that in order to scan or to fax

22

documents, the ink cartridges (necessary for printing and copying) must not be depleted or23

damaged.

24

B.

The All-in-One Printers Are Manufactured, Packaged, Marketed and Sold
With Scanning and Faxing Capabilities Which are Tied to the Availability of
Ink in the Devices

28.

HP’s All-in-One Printers do not work as advertised. Ink is not a necessary

25
26
27

component to scan or to fax a document. However, the HP All-in-One Printers are manufactured,

28

packaged, marketed and sold to consumers in a manner which requires the devices to contain ink
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

7

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

in order to scan or to fax documents. Simply put, HP’s All-in-One Printer do not function as

2scanners or as fax machines if the devices have low, empty or damaged ink cartridges.

329.

If consumers wish to use either of two of the main functions of the device, HP

4forces consumers to purchase ink cartridges whether or not they intend to use ink or want to print

5

or to copy documents. As a result, consumers must incur unexpected and unnecessary burden and

6

expense by purchasing ink cartridges or be deprived of several of the core functions of their

7

supposedly All-in-One printing devices. HP fails to disclose to consumers that its All-in-One

8

Printers have the same flaw.

930.

HP has known for years that its representations and advertisements regarding the10

All-in-One Printers being multifunction devices were false and misleading, and that it fails to11

disclose material information to consumers. Indeed, the Printers have been designed to function

12

this way. In an October 2018 post on HP’s community website, a customer asked why their All-13

in-One Printer would not scan with a damaged ink cartridge:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

My black ink cartridge cacked tonight (screen on printer and warning on
computer saying it failed or was damaged) and I need to scan an important
document. However, it's just saying I need to replace the cartridge and won't letme go past that screen. Is there a way to scan without having to purchase a new
cartridge?
https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Scanning-Faxing-Copying/Scanning-without-a-working-inkcartridge/td-p/6777739 (last visited Feb. 6, 2023). A HP’s employee responded that: “HP Printeris designed in such a way that with the empty cartridge or without the cartridge printer will not
function.” Put differently, Defendant designed the All-in-One Printers so that the entire Printer(including the scan and fax function) stops working if the Printer has an empty and missing
cartridge. Accordingly, at all times relevant, HP was not only aware that is All-in-One Printerswill not work as a scanner or fax machine without ink, it was designed that way: it was a feature
not a bug.
31.

Based on information and belief, the problem rests with HP’s software. Each of

the All-in-One Printers contains the same base software that causes the Printer to enter a “error
state” when it is low or out of ink, or when the ink cartridge is missing or damaged. This error

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

8Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1state prevents the All-in-One Printers from function until the error is cleared (i.e. a new ink

2

cartridge is placed into the printer). Accordingly, as HP acknowledges, its printers are “designed

3

in such a way that with the empty cartridge or without the cartridge printer will not function.”

4

Accordingly, the fact that HP’s All-in-One Printers will not work as a scanner or fax machine5

without ink or an ink cartridge is inherent to the Printers, and this problem exists at the time of6purchase.

732.

Not all multifunction printers are designed, packaged, marketed and sold to8

consumers so that low or no ink causes a loss in scan or fax functionality. Indeed, it is well-9

documented that ink is not required in order to scan or to fax a document, and it is certainly possible10

to manufacture an All-in-One printer that scans or faxes when the device is out of ink.

11

Accordingly, Defendant made a conscious choice in designing and programing is All-in-One

12

Printers.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

33.

HP’s false, misleading and deceptive representations and omissions were and arelikely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
C.

HP’s Design of its All-In-One Ink Jet Printers Is Intended to Increase Ink
Sales

34.

There is no legitimate purpose for selling the All-In-One Printers with scanning or

faxing functionality that is directly tied to the existence or level of ink contained in the devices.
Ink is not needed for scanning or faxing functionality nor does ink improve scanning or faxing
performance. Tying the scan or fax capabilities of the All-In-One Printers to ink contained in thedevices offers no benefit, and only serves to disadvantage and harm consumers financially.
However, tying the scan or fax capabilities of the All-In-One Printers to ink contained in thedevices
does, however, serve to benefit HP.
35.

HP derives substantial profits from the sale of HP printer ink cartridges. Ink

cartridges for the All-in-One Printers retail for approximately $30. The costs of ink for the All-inOne Printers is not trivial or fleeting as “[t]he industry figured out years ago that once people buy
a printer they are committed to it, so you can sell the printer at or below cost knowing they will
buy the cartridges.” Charles LeCompte as quoted in Printer ink: Tired of feeding the cash cow?,

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

9Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1Lamont2

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2503134/printer-ink--tired-of-feeding-the-cash-cow-

3.html (last visited Dec. 3, 2021); see also Jack Houston and Irene Anna Kim, Why printer ink is

4

so expensive, INSIDER (Updated Mar 2, 2021, 12:09 PM) https://www.businessinsider.com/why-5

printer-ink-so-expensive-2019-8 (“companies do everything they can to keep you buying official

6

ink cartridges”) (last visited on Dec. 6, 2021).

7

Wood,

36.

COMPUTERWORLD

(Mar

28,

2012

6:00

am

PST),

According to a 2018 Consumer Reports article, inkjet printers are being sold at a8

low cost, with the expectation that companies would make their profit through sales of the ink

9cartridges needed for the functioning of the machines. Tercius Bufete, Why Is Printer Ink So

10

Expensive?, CONSUMER REPORTS (September 15, 2018) https://www.consumerreports.org

11/printers/why-is-printer-ink-so-expensive-a2101590 645/ (last Dec. 3, 2021). “Most printers are

12

sold at a loss. A manufacturer makes money NOT by selling consumers an inkjet or laser printer,13

but by selling the supplies needed to print.” Why Are Printer Ink and Toner Cartridges So

14

Expensive?, TONERBUZZ https://www.tonerbuzz.com/blog/why- is-printer-ink-so-expensive/

15(last visited on Dec. 3, 2021).

16

37.

Wing Lam, an associate director of cost benchmarking at IHS Markit stated that17“[t]his is a classic razor-and-blade business model where the manufacturer sellsthe goods at a low

18

price to help increase the sales of accessories, where the money is made.” Tercius Bufete, Why Is

19Printer

20

https://www.consumerreports.org/printers/why-is-printer-ink-so-expensive-a210159 0645/ (last21

visited Dec. 3, 2021).

22

Ink

38.

So

Expensive?,

CONSUMERREPORTS(September

15,

2018)

There is no reason or technical basis for manufacturing the All-in-One Printers

23with an ink level detection function that causes the scanner to stop functioning when ink is low or24

empty. HP designed the All-in-One Printers in such a way to require consumers to maintain ink in

25

their devices regardless of whether they intend to print. The result is an increase in ink sales from26

which HP derives significant profits. This forces consumers to incur the unexpected and27

unnecessary burden andexpense of additional and superfluous ink purchases or be unable to scan

28

or fax documents using the so-called all-in-one device.
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

10Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

39.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Defendant could easily change is software, or ofter a sof
EXPERIENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiff Gary Freund40.

In or about July 30, 2021, Plaintiff Freund purchased an HP Envy 6455e All-in-

One Wireless Color Printer from an www.amazon.com.
41.

Plaintiff Freund purchased the HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless Color Printerto use for its advertised scanning purposes.
42.

HP made explicit representations that the HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless

9

Color Printer would be able to scan and did not include any qualifying language that such features

10

would not work if the ink cartridge levels were low or depleted:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

43.

Further, the images for the HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless Color Printer on

20

Amazon advertise the scan function but do not disclose that it will not scan when the ink is low or21

depleted, or if the ink cartridge is damaged or missing:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

11

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

44.

The box packaging containing the HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless Color

Printer advertises the same explicit representations that the device would be able to “scan” andlikewise did not include any qualifying language that such features would not work if the ink
cartridge levels were low or depleted:

27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

12

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

45.

After purchasing and using the device, Plaintiff Freund discovered that the device

did not function as a scanner if the ink cartridges are low or empty.

17

46.

Plaintiff Freund suffered injury and was damaged as a result of HP’s conduct.

18

47.

Plaintiff Freund would not have purchased the device or would not have paid as

19much for it had he known that he would have to maintain ink in the device in order to scan

20

documents.

21

48.

Plaintiff Freund may purchase a HP All-in-One Printer again in the future should

22

HP continue to advertise a product as all-in-one as he would think it meant HP fixed the issue.

23

Plaintiff Wayne McMath

24
25
26
27
28

49.

In or about September 2019, Plaintiff McMath purchased an HP Deskjet 2655

All-in-One Compact Printer from an online retailer.
50.

Plaintiff McMath purchased the HP Deskjet 2655 All-in-One Compact Printer touse for its advertised scanning purposes.
51.

HP made explicit representations that the device would be able to scan and did

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

not include any qualifying language that such features would not work if the ink cartridge levels

2were low or depleted:

3

•

4

Main functions of this HP compact color printer: print, scan, copy, wirelessprinting, AirPrint, Instant Ink ready so you'll never run out of ink, and more

5

•

6

Print, copy, and scan while saving money and space with a wireless all-in-one
printer.

7•

The power of your printer in the palm of your hand: The HP Smart app allows you

8

to

9

https://www.amazon.com/HP-DeskJet-2655-Compact-Replenishment/dp/B06XH

10

XWB7B (last visited Dec. 6, 2021) (highlighting added).

11

52.

easily

set

up

your

printer,

scan

from

your

smartphone.

Further, the images for the HP Deskjet 2655 All-in-One Compact Printer online

12

do not do not disclose that it will not scan when the ink is low or depleted, or if the ink cartridge

13

is damaged or missing:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

14

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

53.

The box packaging containing the HP Deskjet 2655 All-in-One Compact Printer2

advertises the same explicit representations that the device would be able to “scan” and likewise3

did not include any qualifying language that such features would not work if the ink cartridge

4levels were low or depleted:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

54.

After purchasing and using the device, Plaintiff McMath discovered that thedevice did not function as a scanner if the ink cartridges are low or empty.

20

55.

Plaintiff McMath suffered injury and was damaged as a result of HP’s conduct.

21

56.

Plaintiff McMath would not have purchased the device or would not have paid as

22much for it had he known that he would have to maintain ink in the device in order to scan

23

documents.

24

57.

Plaintiff McMath may purchase a HP All-in-One Printer again in the future should25

HP continue to advertise a product as all-in-one as he would think it meant HP fixed the issue.

26

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27
28

58.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, individually and on behalf of the following Nationwide Class:
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

15

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2

All persons who purchased a HP All-in-One Printer, in the United States, forpersonal/household use, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations(the “Nationwide Class”).

3

59.

4

California subclass:

5

Plaintiff Freund brings this action individually and on behalf of the following

6

All persons residing in California who purchased a HP All-in-One Printer for
personal/household use, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations (the“California subclass”).

7

60.

8

Minnesota subclass:

9

Plaintiff McMath brings this action individually and on behalf of the following

10

All persons residing in Minnesota who purchased a HP All-in-One Printer for
personal/household use, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations (the“Minnesota subclass”).

11

61.

Specifically excluded from the Classes are HP, its officers, directors, agents,

12

trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint venturers or entities

13

controlled by HP, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or

14

affiliated with HP and/or its officers and/or directors, the judge assigned to this action and any

15

member of the judge’s immediate family.

16

62.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definitions above if further

17

investigation and/or discovery reveals that the Classes should be expanded, narrowed, divided into

18

subclasses or otherwise modified in any way.

19

63.

Numerosity: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the20

Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all class members

21

is impracticable.

22

information discussed herein—that there are millions of class members, making joinder

23

impracticable. Those individuals’ identities are available through HP’s records and class members

24

may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination25

methods.

26

64.

Plaintiffs are informed and believes—based upon the publicly-available

Commonality and Predominance: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2)27& 23(b)(3). HP has acted with respect to Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed Classes

28

in a manner generally applicable to each of them. There is a well-defined community of interest
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

16

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

in the questions of law and fact involved, which affect all class members. The questions of law

2

and fact common to the Classes predominate over the questions that may affect individual class3

members include the following:

4a.

Whether HP intentionally designed its All-in-One Printers so that the5scanning and faxing functionality was disabled if the devices were low or

6

out of ink;

7

b.

8

scan nor fax if the devices were low or out of ink;

9

d.

10

Whether the fact that the All-in-One Printers would not scan nor fax if thedevices were low or out of ink was material to reasonable consumers;

11

e.

12

Whether the omission that the All-in-One Printers would not scan nor fax if
the devices were low or out of ink was deceptive to reasonable consumers;

13f.

Whether HP All-in-One Printers function as a scanner with low or empty

14

ink and

15

g.

16
17

Whether HP disclosed to consumers that its All-in-One Printers would not

The nature of relief, including damages and equitable relief, to which
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are entitled.

65.

Typicality: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are

18

typical of other class members’ claims because Plaintiffs and class members were subjected to the19same allegedly unlawful conduct and damaged in the same way.

20

66.

Adequacy of Representation: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

21

Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because their interests do no conflict with the interests

22of class members whom they seek to represent, Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and23

experienced in complex class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action

24

vigorously. The class members’ interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and25

counsel.

26

67.

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

27

The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent28

or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

17

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1incompatible standards of conduct for HP. Such individual actions would create a risk of2

adjudication that would be dispositive of the interests of other class members and impair their3interests. HP has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes,

4

making injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate.

568.

Superiority: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is

6

superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy,

7and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.

8

The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and class members are relatively

9small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their

10

claims against HP, so it would be impracticable for class members to individually seek redress for

11

HP’s wrongful conduct. Even if class members could afford litigation, the court system could not.

12

Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent and or contradictory judgments and13

increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action

14

device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication,

15

economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

16
17

69.

Plaintiffs know of no difficulty which will be encountered in the management of

this litigation which would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

18

CAUSES OF ACTION

19

COUNT IFRAUDULENT OMISSION(On behalf of Plaintiffs & the Nationwide Class)

20
21
22

70.

Plaintiffs reincorporate and re-allege each preceding paragraph herein and bringthis claim on behalf of the Nationwide Class.

23

71.

HP intentionally omitted certain material facts regarding its All-in-One Printers.

24

72.

Specifically, HP failed to warn consumers that its All-in-One Printers will disable

25

the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of ink, despite the fact that ink is

26

not required to perform either function.

27
28

73.

Had HP disclosed these issues, rather than falsely advertising the convenience andfunctionality of the All-in-One Printers, consumers would not have purchased or, alternatively,
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

18

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2

would have paid significantly less for the devices.
74.

The advertisements, which were made expressly through uniform representations

3

from HP were material and would have been considered by a reasonable consumer in making

4purchasing decisions.

5

75.

6
7

Plaintiffs and Nationwide Class members acquired the All-in-One Printersbelieving they would function as advertised.
76.

As a result, Plaintiffs and class members were directly and proximately injured

8by HP’s failure to inform Plaintiffs and Nationwide Class members of the All-in-One Printers will9

disable the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of ink despite the fact that10

ink is not required to perform either function.

11

COUNT II
California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act
Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”)(On Behalf of Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

77.

Plaintiff Freund repeats and realleges the allegations in the previous paragraphs as

if fully set forth herein.
78.

The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of abusiness that provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.
79.

HP intentionally omitted certain material facts regarding its All-in-One Printers.

80.

Specifically, HP failed to warn consumers that its All-in-One Printers will disable

the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of ink despite the fact that ink is
not required to perform either function.
81.

HP’s false and misleading advertising and other policies, acts, and practices were

designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of the All-in-One Printers for personal, family,or household purposes by Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members, and violated andcontinue to violate the following sections of the CLRA:
a. § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or
benefits which they do not have;

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

19

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

12b. § 1770(a)(7): representing that goods are of a particular standard,quality, or grade if they are of another;34c. § 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not to sell them asadvertised; and

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

d. § 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been
supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.
82.

Defendant profited from the sale of the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully

advertised All-in-One Printers to unwary consumers.
83.

Defendant’s wrongful business practices constituted, and constitute, a continuingcourse of conduct in violation of the CLRA.
84.

Pursuant to the provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a), Plaintiff Freund provided a12letter to Defendant noticing its alleged violations of the CLRA, demanding that Defendant correct

13

such violations, and providing it with the opportunity to correct its business practices. Defendant14

did not respond to the letter within the period required, accordingly Plaintiff Freund seeks

15

monetary relief, including restitution and actual and punitive damages under the Consumers Legal

16

Remedies Act. Pursuant to California Civil Code §1780, Plaintiff Freund further seeks injunctive

17

relief, her reasonable attorney fees and costs, and any other relief that the Court deems proper.

18

COUNT IIIVIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

85.

Plaintiff Freund reincorporate and reallege each preceding paragraph herein andbrings this claim on behalf himself and the California Subclass.
86.

HP is a “person[]” as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17201.

87.

HP violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) by engaging in

unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business acts and practices.
88.

Defendant’s conduct is “Fraudulent” as Defendant’s misrepresentation of thefunctionality of its All-in-Printers likely to mislead reasonable consumers. Specifically, Defendantactively conceals a material fact from consumers and makes partial representations, suppressing

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

20

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2material facts as alleged herein.
89.

Specifically, HP failed to warn consumers that its All-in-One Printers will disable

3

the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of ink despite the fact that ink is

4

not required to perform either function.

5

90.

6

Defendant’s “unfair” acts and practices include:a.

7

Knowingly designing, developing, manufacturing, advertising and selling
All-in-Printers to not be operational without ink or with low ink;

8

b.

9

Concealing material information from consumers regarding their All-inOne Printers require ink to use the scan and fax functions;10c.

Using uniform, deceptive business practices causing consumers to spend

11

additional money to secure additional ink cartridges in order to get their12

devices to work.

13
14
15
16
17

91.

HP’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale of All-in-Printersis also unfair because it violates public policy as described below.
92.

HP has engaged in “unlawful” business practices by violating multiple laws

including Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., and California common law.
93.

18

HP’s unlawful, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices include:a.

Knowingly designing, developing, manufacturing, advertising and selling19

All-in-Printers with significant Design Flaws that result in the devices not

20

operating as intended, represented or advertised under normal usage;

21

b.

22

Concealing material information from consumers regarding their All-inOne Printers require ink to use the scan and fax functions; and23c.

Using uniform, deceptive business practices requiring consumers to spend

24

additional money to secure additional ink cartridges in order to get their25

devices to work.

26

94.

HP violated § 17200’s prohibition against engaging in unlawful acts and practices

27

by engaging in false and misleading advertising by omitting material facts from purchasers of their28

Devices.
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

21

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

95.

This conduct is substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, is2immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous as the severity of the conduct—advertising All-3

in-One printers as convenient and capable of scanning and faxing (among other things) but not4

disclosing that the devices will not scan or fax without ink—outweighs any alleged benefit.

596.

HP engaged in this conduct to gain an unfair commercial advantage over its

6competitors. Defendant withheld critical and material information from Plaintiff Freund and7

California Subclass Members, competitors and the marketplace, all to their unfair competitive

8

advantage. Thus, consumers are not able to avoid the injury described herein.

997.

As a direct and proximate result of HP’s unfair, unlawful and fraudulent acts and10practices, Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members were injured and lost money or

11

property, including from not receiving the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the devices, and12

increased time and expense in dealing with the devices’ performance issues.

13

98.

Plaintiff and the California Subclass do not have an adequate remedy at law

14

because damages alone will not stop Defendant’s unlawful omissions. Damages will only address

15

past injuries visited on Plaintiff and the California Subclass. Only injunctive relief can prevent any

16

future harm. For example, Defendant can remedy the software issue that prevents consumers from17

using the scan and fax functions when an ink cartridge is low, missing or damaged. Alternatively,

18

Defendant should be required to disclose the fact that the scan and fax does not function when an

19

ink cartridge is low, missing or damaged.

20

99.

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks restitution if monetary damages are not available.

21

Indeed, restitution under the UCL can be awarded in situations where the entitlement to damages22

may prove difficult. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 177 (2000)

23(Restitution under the UCL can be awarded “even absent individualized proof that the claimant

24

lacked knowledge of the overcharge when the transaction occurred.”); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo

25

Bank, NA, 589 F. App’x 824, 827 (9th Cir. 2014) (same); Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co., 18 Cal.

26

App. 4th 644, 661 (1993) (“In a suit arising under Business and Professions Code section 17200

27

et seq., the court ‘is empowered to grant equitable relief, including restitution in favor of absent

28

persons, without certifying a class action.’”).
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

22

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

100.

But even if damages were available, such relief would not be adequate to address2

the injury suffered by Plaintiff and the California Subclass. Unlike damages, the Court’s discretion3

in fashioning equitable relief is very broad. Cortez, 23 Cal.4th at 180. Thus, restitution would allow

4

recovery even when normal consideration associated with damages would not. See, e.g., Fladeboe

5v. Am. Isuzu Motors Inc., 150 Cal. App. 4th 42, 68 (2007), as modified (Apr. 24, 2007) (noting

6

that restitution is available even in situations where damages may not be available).

7

101.

Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members seek all monetary and non-8

monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution stemming from HP’s unfair, unlawful and9fraudulent business practices; declaratory relief; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under

10

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; injunctive relief and other appropriate equitable

11

relief.

13

COUNT IVVIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE
ADVERTISING LAW, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500, ET SEQ.
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF FREUND & THE CALIFORNIA SUBCLASS)

14

102.

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff Freund reincorporates and realleges each preceding paragraph herein andbrings this claim on behalf themselves and the California Subclass.
103.

By its actions and omissions as set forth herein, HP disseminated uniform

advertising regarding the All-in-One Printers into California.
104.

The advertising was, by its very nature, unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading

within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
105.

Such advertisements were intended to and likely did deceive the consuming

public for the reasons detailed herein.
106.

The above-described false, misleading and deceptive advertising HP

23disseminated continues to have a likelihood to deceive in that HP failed to disclose the fact that its

24

All-in-One printers will disable the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of25

ink despite the fact that ink is not required to perform either function.

26

107.

Had HP disclosed these issues, rather than falsely advertising the convenience and27functionality of the All-in-One printers, consumers would not have purchased or, alternatively,

28

paid significantly less for the devices.
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

23

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

108.

In making and disseminating the statements alleged herein, HP knew, or shouldhave known, its advertisements were untrue and misleading in violation of California law.
109.

Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members based their purchasing

decisions on HP’s omission of certain material facts.
110.

The revenue attributable to products sold in those false and misleading

advertisements likely amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars.
111.

Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members were injured in fact and lostmoney and property as a result.
112.

The omission by Defendant of the material facts described and details herein10

constitute false and misleading advertising and, therefore, constitute violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

11

Code § 17500, et seq.

12

113.

Plaintiff and the California Subclass do not have an adequate remedy at law

13

because damages alone will not stop Defendant’s unlawful omissions. Damages will only address

14

past injuries visited on Plaintiff and the California Subclass. Only injunctive relief can prevent any

15

future harm. For example, Defendant can remedy the software issue that prevents consumers from16

using the scan and fax functions when an ink cartridge is low, missing or damaged. Alternatively,

17

Defendant should be required to disclose the fact that the scan and fax does not function when an18

ink cartridge is low, missing or damaged.

19

114.

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks restitution if monetary damages are not available.

20

Indeed, restitution under the FAL can be awarded in situations where the entitlement to damages21

may prove difficult. Cortez, 23 Cal.4th at 177 (Restitution under the UCL can be awarded “even22absent individualized proof that the claimant lacked knowledge of the overcharge when the23transaction occurred.”); Gutierrez, 589 F. App’x at 827 (same); Caro, 18 Cal. App. 4th at 661 (“In24a suit arising under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the court ‘is empowered25

to grant equitable relief, including restitution in favor of absent persons, without certifying a class26

action.’”).

27

115.

28

But even if damages were available, such relief would not be adequate to address

the injury suffered by Plaintiff and the California Subclass. Unlike damages, the Court’s discretion
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

24

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

in fashioning equitable relief is very broad. Cortez, 23 Cal.4th at 180. Thus, restitution would allow

2

recovery even when normal consideration associated with damages would not. See, e.g., Fladeboe,

3

150 Cal. App. 4th at 68 (2007) (noting that restitution is available even in situations where damages4

may not be available).

5

116.

Plaintiff Freund and California Subclass Members seek all monetary and non-6

monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution of all profits stemming from Defendant’s

7

unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; declaratory relief; reasonable attorneys’ fees8

and costs under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; injunctive relief and other9

appropriate equitable relief.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

COUNT VVIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA’S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota Subclass Members)
117.

Plaintiff McMath reincorporate and reallege each preceding paragraph herein andbrings this claim on behalf himself and the Minnesota Subclass.
118.

Defendant intentionally concealed the material fact that the scan and fax functions

on the All-in-One Printers does not work when an ink cartridge is low, missing or damaged.
119.

The following are ways in which Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 325D.44 :a.

18Knowingly designing, developing, manufacturing, advertising and selling19

All-in-Printers to not be operational without ink or with low ink;

20

b.

21

c.

23

27
28

Using uniform, deceptive business practices causing consumers to spend
additional money to secure additional ink cartridges in order to get their

24

26

Concealing material information from consumers regarding their All-inOne Printers require ink to use the scan and fax functions;22

25

Knowingly designing, developing, manufacturing, advertising and sellingdevices to work.
120.

The Minnesota statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices apply

because Defendant's deceptive scheme was carried out in Minnesota and affected Plaintiff McMathand the Minnesota Subclass who purchased All-in-One Printers which would not work as a fax

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

25

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1
2machine or scanner with a low, missing, or damaged ink cartridge.
121.

HP engaged in this conduct to gain an unfair commercial advantage over its

3competitors. Defendant withheld critical and material information from Plaintiff McMath and the4Minnesota Subclass Members, competitors and the marketplace, all to their unfair competitive

5

advantage.

6

122.

As a direct and proximate result of HP’s unfair, unlawful and fraudulent acts and7practices, Plaintiff McMath and the Minnesota Subclass Members were injured and lost money or

8property, including from not receiving the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the devices, and9

increased time and expense in dealing with the devices’ performance issues.

10

123.

Plaintiff McMath and the Minnesota Subclass Members seek all monetary and11non-monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution and all profits stemming from HP’s

12

unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; declaratory relief; reasonable attorneys’ fees13

and costs; injunctive relief and other appropriate equitable relief.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW,
MINN. STAT. § 325F.67, ET SEQ.
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF MCMATH & THE MINNESOTA SUBCLASS)
124.

Plaintiff McMath reincorporates and realleges each preceding paragraph hereinand brings this claim on behalf themselves and the Minnesota Subclass.
125.

By its omissions as set forth herein, HP disseminated uniform advertisingregarding the All-in-One Printers into Minnesota.
126.

The advertising was, by its very nature, unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading

within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 325F.67, et seq.
127.

Such advertisements were intended to and likely did deceive the consuming

public for the reasons detailed herein.
128.

The above-described false, misleading and deceptive advertising HP

disseminated continues to have a likelihood to deceive in that HP failed to disclose that its All-inOne Printers will disable the scanning and faxing functionality if the device is low or out of ink
despite the fact that ink is not required to perform either function.

FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

26

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1

129.

Had HP disclosed these issues, rather than falsely advertising the convenience and2functionality of the All-in-One printers, consumers would not have purchased or, alternatively,

3

paid significantly less for the devices.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

130.

In making and disseminating the statements alleged herein, HP knew, or shouldhave known, its advertisements were untrue and misleading in violation of Minnesota law.
131.

Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota Subclass Members based their purchasing

decisions on HP’s omission of certain material facts.
132.

The revenue attributable to products sold in those false and misleading

advertisements likely amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars.
133.

Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota Subclass Members were injured in fact and lostmoney and property as a result.
134.

The misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Defendant of the material facts

13

described and details herein constitute false and misleading advertising and, therefore, constitute14

violations of Minn. Stat. § 325F.67, et seq.

15

135.

As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota

16

Subclass Members lost money in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota

17

Subclass Members are therefore entitled to restitution as appropriate for this cause of action.

18

136.

Plaintiff McMath and Minnesota Subclass Members seek all monetary and non-19

monetary relief allowed by law, including restitution of all profits stemming from Defendant’s

20

unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; declaratory relief; reasonable attorneys’ fees21

and costs; injunctive relief and other appropriate equitable relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22
23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

24

request that this Court enter judgment against HP, Inc. d/b/a HP Computing and Printing Inc. and25

in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses, and award the following relief:

26

a.

Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal

27

Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Nationwide Class

28

and Subclasses, and Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the Nationwide Class and Subclasses;
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

27

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

1b.

Awarding declaratory relief and enjoining HP from continuing the2

unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, harmful, and unfair business conduct and practices alleged3

herein;4c.

Ordering HP to pay actual, compensatory, and statutory damages (including

5

punitive damages) or, in the alternative, restitution to Plaintiffs and the other class6

members, as allowable by law;7d.

Order HP to pay both pre-and post-judgment interest on any amounts

8

awarded;9e.

Ordering HP to pay attorneys’ fees and cost of suit and

10f.

Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

11
12
13

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any
and all issues in this action so triable as of right.

14
15

Dated: February 10, 2023

16

Respectfully submitted,/s/ Trenton R. Kashima
Trenton R. Kashima (SBN 291405)
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSONPHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (714) 651-8845
tkashima@milberg.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

17
18
19
20
21
22

Nick Suciu*
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPSGROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Tel: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com

23
24
25
26

Gary Klinger*
Russell Busch*
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS

27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

28

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel.: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com

1
2
3
4

*Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

29

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF

AFFIDAVIT OF TRENTON R. KASHIMA

1
2

I, Trenton Kashima, declare as follows:3

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed and entitled to practice law in the state of California.

4

I am an attorney of the law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, attorneys for5

Plaintiffs in above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if

6called to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.

7

2.

Based on information from Defendant’s website and the California Secretary of

8State, Defendant Defendant HP, Inc. d/b/a HP Computing and Printing Inc. resides, has its

9

principal place of business, is registered to do business and/or is in-fact doing business at Palo10

Alto, California, located within the County of Santa Clara County.

11

3.

Accordingly, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1780, the12United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the proper venue for

13

Plaintiff’s California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims because the Court’s jurisdiction

14

includes Santa Clara County, the principal place of business of Defendant.

15
16
17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing istrue and correct.
Executed on February 10, 2023 in San Diego, California.

18/s/ Trenton Kashima
Trenton Kashima

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

30

Case No.: 22-cv-03794-BLF