Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02035/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02035-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MAURY ADKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02035-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 14]

This putative class action concerns a one-year limited warranty on computer hardware that 

is supposed to commence on the date of purchase. Plaintiff Maury Adkins (“Plaintiff”) claims that 

defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“Defendant” or “HP”) has a corporate policy of beginning 

the warranty term earlier than the date of purchase for HP computers sold through retailers, 

purportedly for the purpose of providing “pre-activation support.” Compl. ¶¶ 3, 26, 31, ECF 1-1. 

Consumers may not be aware of this policy because when they register their HP computers to 

activate the warranty, they are not asked for their date of purchase, nor do they receive an accurate 

start and end date for the warranty. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff further alleges that unless a consumer asks 

HP to revise the commencement date to coincide with the date of purchase at the beginning of the 

warranty term, HP will deny warranty support one year after the start of the “pre-activation 

support” period even if the consumer requests support within one year of the date of purchase. Id.

¶ 26. Based on this alleged policy, Plaintiff was unable to obtain warranty support in November 

2014 for an HP laptop that he purchased from Wal-Mart on November 16, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 27, 32. 

Plaintiff therefore seeks to represent a nationwide class on claims against Defendant for (1) 

violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civil Code § 1750 et 

seq.; (2) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 

Case 5:15-cv-02035-BLF Document 29 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

et seq.; (3) fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition 

Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6) 

breach of contract.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 14, which was heard on August 

20, 2015. For the reasons stated on the record and summarized below, the motion is GRANTED 

with leave to amend.

1

All of Plaintiff’s claims rest on a theory of fraud and/or misrepresentation that has evolved 

somewhat between the Complaint and the briefing on Defendant’s motion. By Plaintiff’s own 

admission, the Complaint is not entirely clear in stating that the claims in this case revolve around 

Defendant’s alleged policy of starting the one-year warranty before purchase for “pre-activation 

support.” Plaintiff shall therefore have leave to amend to more clearly articulate his theory and the 

“who, what, when, where, and how” of Defendant’s fraud, with particular emphasis on the “what.” 

See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Plaintiff purchased his HP computer in Massachusetts and is not a California

resident, Plaintiff must allege facts to demonstrate that he can state claims for relief under 

California law.

2

 The ordinary presumption against the extraterritorial application of California 

law applies with full force to the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. See Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 

4th 1191, 1207 (2011); Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1147-48 (N.D. 

Cal. 2013). Where none of the alleged misconduct or injuries occurred in California, a nonCalifornia resident cannot sustain claims under California law. Wilson, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1147. 

“In determining whether California law should apply to a certain claim, courts consider facts like 

where the defendant is located, where the class members are located, and where decisions about 

the behavior in question were made.” Id. at 1148 (citing In re Toyota Motor Corp., 785 F. Supp. 

2d 883, 917 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Here, although Defendant is headquartered in California, it is not 

 

1 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, ECF 20, is DENIED because the Court finds the email 

communications between HP and Plaintiff neither appropriate for judicial notice nor incorporated 

by reference into the Complaint. The emails and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should, 

however, inform how Plaintiff amends the allegations in the Complaint. 

2 Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff’s alternative pleadings under Massachusetts law.

Case 5:15-cv-02035-BLF Document 29 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

clear where the allegedly unlawful conduct took place, in large part because Plaintiff’s theory of 

liability still requires clarification. Plaintiff must therefore amend to allege facts regarding the 

nexus between his claims and California sufficient to overcome the presumption against 

extraterritoriality.

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by no later than October 20, 2015. In light of 

the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds good cause to CONTINUE 

the Initial Case Management Conference in this matter to December 17, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02035-BLF Document 29 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3