Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02253/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02253-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-09-2253 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 1/15/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CASS WILSON, and DOUGLAS

KRUSCHEN, Individually and On Behalf of

All Others Similarly Situated and the General

Public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. C-09-2253 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 30]

Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended

Complaint came on for hearing before the court on January 15, 2010. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

Having considered the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, and for good

cause appearing, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend.

The court is not satisfied that the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are

sufficient to plausibly allege a defect in the HP laptop computers that creates an unreasonable safety

risk. The court is also concerned that the asserted claims all involve fraudulent intent, but few if any

facts are pleaded from which an inference of knowledge of the allegedly hazardous defect could be

drawn. Mere allegations of a design defect are not enough, and the specific consumer complaints

identified in paragraph 34 of the Second Amended Complaint are either undated or were made after

Case 5:09-cv-02253-RMW Document 34 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-09-2253 RMW

TER 2

the named plaintiffs had already purchased their laptops. The allegations are not sufficient to

establish (if proven) that defendant had knowledge of the alleged defect and safety hazard prior to

the sale of the computers to the plaintiffs and putative class.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiffs are granted 30 days leave to file

a further amended complaint.

The Case Management Conference calendared for January 15, 2010 is vacated and shall be

scheduled to occur after the pleadings are closed.

DATED: 1/15/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-02253-RMW Document 34 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-09-2253 RMW

TER 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Mark F. Anderson 

Email: mark@kabolaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Samuel G. Liversidge 

Email: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com 

Timothy William Loose 

Email: tloose@gibsondunn.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/15/10 TER

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:09-cv-02253-RMW Document 34 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 3