UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Rafael Hernandez, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

- against - Class Action Complaint

HP Inc.,

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendant

Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations about Plaintiff, which 

are based on personal knowledge:

1. HP Inc. (“Defendant”) manufactures, markets, and/or sells the HP Pavilion 15 Series 

of laptop computers under the HP brand with lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries (“Product”). 

2. A laptop’s battery is its most important feature, allowing use of the computer without 

a power source.

3. Lithium-ion batteries have six main components – two electrodes, two current 

collectors, an electrolyte, and a separator.

4. The two electrodes, anode and cathode, are usually made of graphite, carbon and or 

lithium metal oxide.

5. The electrodes are electronically insulated from each other by a separator, soaked in 

an organic electrolyte.

6. The current collectors are usually copper and aluminum.

7. When the battery is discharged, the anode is oxidized, and lithium ions are 

deintercalated from the anode, traveling through the electrolyte, and intercalate into the cathode.

8. When the battery is charged, the cathode is oxidized, and the lithium ions move from 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 1 of 11
2

the cathode to the anode.

9. A laptop user expects its battery to adequately function for the lifespan the laptop, 

and not suffer rapid degradation and failure.

10. Lithium-ion battery defects include premature failure, high C-rate (electrical current 

drain rate), swelling and overheating, which are not always attributed to normal degradation.

11. Testing methods for batteries are limited to electrochemical characterization, 

focusing on macroscopic battery performance, including impedance and capacity measurements.1

12. These tests overlook failure precursors and defects introduced during manufacturing,

including raw electrode material processing, cell grading and battery pack assembling.

13. Battery manufacturing defects contribute to reliability and performance issues, 

including low states of charge and unexpected shutdowns.

14. Structural cell defects from manufacturing can lead to acute failure, chronic 

degradation, inferior electrochemical performance and overheating.

15. During the electrode preparation process, non-uniform coating of the electrode on 

current collector, pinhole defects, and blisters/agglomerates can be generated, causing 

performance-related defects, leading to substandard capacity, increased impedance, higher 

degradation rate, and reduced useful life.

16. Electrode overhang will lead to dendrite growth and eventual short-circuits.

17. A mild tab burr could occur if the welding is not exact, which can become hazardous 

during prolonged battery use.

18. Defects in the separator include holes, inferior puncture strength, and clogged pores,

causing local lithium plating, leading to reduction of battery capacity by consuming active lithium.

 

1 These include IEEE Standard 1625.

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 2 of 11
3

19. Morphological defects in producing batteries include non-uniform active particle 

packing in the electrode when particles with distinct sizes coexist, significantly affecting the 

battery’s lifespan.

20. Though material impurities and contaminants introduced during manufacturing may 

not cause failure, they can provoke catastrophic cell damage during cycling and can affect the 

battery’s resistance, reducing its usable lifespan.

21. As the C-rate increases, the elevated temperature increases decomposition of 

electrolyte, leading to the more rapid consumption of active lithium, and reduction in cathode 

performance.

22. Current battery testing standards fail to test finished batteries at higher C-rates that 

are consistent with expected operational usage conditions.

23. By failing to utilize available testing procedures to focus on the above issues, users 

have a greater chance of buying laptops with battery performance issues, unconnected to their 

usage patterns.

24. By selling its laptops, Defendant represents that their component parts are adequate 

for usage and will function reliably for a reasonable period of time.

25. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value 

as represented by Defendant. 

26. The Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $300, excluding 

tax and sales, higher than similar products, sold and represented in a non-misleading way, and 

higher than it would be sold for if consumers were aware it was prone to these defects.

Jurisdiction and Venue

27. Jurisdiction is based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28 U.S.C. 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 3 of 11
4

§ 1332(d)(2).

28. The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including any statutory and 

punitive damages, exclusive of interest and costs.

29. Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida.

30. Defendant is citizen of Delaware and California.

31. The class of persons Plaintiff seeks to represent includes persons who are citizens of 

different states from which Defendant is a citizen.

32. The members of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent are more than 100, because the 

Product has been sold in thousands of locations, including big box stores, warehouse club stores, 

stores, and online, across the States covered by Plaintiff’s proposed classes.

33. Venue is in this District with assignment to the Miami Division because Plaintiff 

resides in Miami-Dade County and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to 

these claims occurred here, including Plaintiff’s purchase of the Product and awareness its sale 

was misleading and deceptive because of the issues described here.

Parties

34. Plaintiff Rafael Hernandez is a citizen of Miami, Florida, Miami-Dade County.

35. Defendant HP Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in 

Pasadena, California, Los Angeles County.

36. Defendant sells laptop computers through its website and via third-party websites 

and physical stores.

37. Plaintiff purchased the Product within the statutes of limitations for each cause of 

action alleged, on Walmart.com, in or around November 2020.

38. Plaintiff bought the Product because he expected its components such as its battery,

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

would be adequately manufactured, designed and tested so that it could reliably hold its charge 

and not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected to an external power source.

39. Plaintiff relied on the sale of the Product, words, terms coloring, descriptions, layout, 

placement, packaging, tags, and/or images on the Product, on the labeling, statements, omissions, 

claims, and instructions, made by Defendant or at its directions, in digital, print and/or social 

media, which accompanied the Product and separately, through in-store, digital, audio, and print 

marketing.

40. Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the above-referenced price.

41. Plaintiff expected that the sale of the Product meant its components were adequately 

tested to ensure performance and functioning under normal use conditions.

42. The battery in Plaintiff’s laptop suffered premature failure and degradation after only 

several months of normal usage, whereby it was incapable of obtaining and maintaining its charge

for any reasonable period of time, preventing and limiting his ability to use it.

43. Plaintiff and consumers paid more for the Product than they would have had they

known the batteries were only subjected to electrochemical characterization tests, focusing on 

macroscopic battery performance, instead of the occurrence of other defects which could and did 

cause battery failures.

44. Plaintiff intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the Product again when he can do so 

with the assurance its components are adequately tested to ensure normal operation and usage.

45. Plaintiff is unable to rely on the labeling of not only this Product, but other batterypowered products because he is unsure of whether their representations are truthful.

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 5 of 11
6

Class Allegations

46. Plaintiff seeks certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following classes:

Florida Class: All persons in the State of Florida

who purchased the Product during the statutes of 

limitations for each cause of action alleged.

Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in 

the States of Georgia, South Carolina, New Mexico, 

Alaska, Iowa, Tennessee, and Virginia who 

purchased the Product during the statutes of 

limitations for each cause of action alleged.

47. Common questions of issues, law, and fact predominate and include whether 

Defendant’s representations were and are misleading and if Plaintiff and class members are entitled 

to damages.

48. Plaintiff’s claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were 

subjected to the same unfair, misleading, and deceptive representations, omissions, and actions.

49. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because his interests do not conflict with other 

members. 

50. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on Defendant’s practices 

and the class is definable and ascertainable.

51. Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical 

to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.

52. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation 

and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.

53. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 6 of 11
7

55. Plaintiff relied on the Product’s sale, representations and omissions, to believe its 

components were adequately tested to ensure performance and functioning under normal use 

conditions.

56. Plaintiff and class members were damaged by paying more for the Product than they 

would have if they knew the present facts.

Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts

 (Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class)

57. The Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class are 

similar to the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff and prohibit the use of unfair or 

deceptive practices.

58. The members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class were harmed in the same 

way as Plaintiff, and may assert their consumer protection claims under the Consumer Fraud Acts 

of their States and/or the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff.

Breaches of Express Warranty,

Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose and

Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.

59. The Product was manufactured, identified, marketed, and sold by Defendant and 

expressly and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff and class members that its components were 

adequately tested to ensure performance and functioning under normal use conditions.

60. Defendant directly marketed the Product to Plaintiff through its advertisements and 

marketing, through various forms of media, on the packaging, in print circulars, direct mail, 

product descriptions distributed to resellers, and targeted digital advertising, as a product that did 

not contain inadequately tested components.

61. Defendant knew the product attributes that potential customers like Plaintiff were 

seeking, such as products which were reliable and were tested to detect failure points, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 7 of 11
8

developed its marketing and labeling to directly meet those needs and desires.

62. Defendant’s representations about the Product were conveyed in writing and 

promised it would be defect-free, and Plaintiff understood this meant that its battery would not 

prematurely fail or degrade under normal usage.

63. The representations were conveyed in writing through the sale of the Product and 

promised it would be defect-free, and Plaintiff understood this meant that its battery would not 

prematurely fail or degrade under normal usage.

64. Defendant described the Product so Plaintiff believed that its battery would not 

prematurely fail or degrade under normal usage, which became part of the basis of the bargain that 

it would conform to its affirmations and promises.

65. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and 

marketing of the Product, i.e., that its most important component was not tested in a manner 

designed to identify the above failure points.

66. This duty is based on Defendant’s outsized role in the market for this type of product, 

custodian of the HP brand.

67. Plaintiff recently became aware of Defendant’s breach of the Product’s warranties.

68. Plaintiff provides or will provide notice to Defendant, its agents, representatives, 

retailers, and their employees that it breached the Product’s express and implied warranties.

69. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to 

complaints by third-parties, including regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices, 

and by consumers through online forums.

70. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises.

71. The Product was not merchantable because it was not fit to pass in the trade as 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 8 of 11
9

advertised, not fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended and did not conform to the 

promises or affirmations of fact made on the packaging, container, or label, because it was marketed 

and sold as if its components such as its battery, would be adequately manufactured, designed and 

tested so that it could reliably hold its charge and not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected 

to an external power source.

72. The Product was not merchantable because Defendant had reason to know the 

particular purpose for which the Product was bought by Plaintiff, because he expected its 

components such as its battery, would be adequately manufactured, designed and tested so that it 

could reliably hold its charge and not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected to an external 

power source, and relied on Defendant’s skill and judgment to select or furnish such a suitable 

product.

Negligent Misrepresentation

73. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached.

74. This duty was non-delegable, based on Defendant’s position, holding itself out as 

having special knowledge and experience as a trusted brand known for high quality computers.

75. The representations and omissions went beyond the specific sale and representations, 

and incorporated the extra-labeling promises and commitments to quality Defendant has been 

known for.

76. These promises were outside the standard representations other companies may make 

in an arms-length, retail context.

77. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the 

point-of-sale and their trust in Defendant.

78. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 9 of 11
10

omissions, which served to induce and did induce, his purchase of the Product. 

Fraud

79. Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product, 

and expected its components such as its battery, would be adequately manufactured, designed and 

tested so that it could reliably hold its charge and not drain rapidly after short periods unconnected 

to an external power source.

80. Defendant was aware, based on internal studies, that consumer preferences for 

laptops rated a reliable battery as the top feature they look for.

Unjust Enrichment

81. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented, 

sold and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of Plaintiff and class members, who seek 

restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.

Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment:

1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying Plaintiff as representative and the

undersigned as counsel for the class;

2. Injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices;

3. Awarding monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages and interest;

4. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for Plaintiff’s attorneys and 

experts; and

5. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 25, 2022

Respectfully submitted, 

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 10 of 11
11

/s/ William Wright

The Wright Law Office, P.A.

515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300 

West Palm Beach FL 33401

(561) 514-0904

willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

Spencer Sheehan (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412

Great Neck NY 11021

(516) 268-7080

spencer@spencersheehan.com

Case 1:22-cv-23482-PCH Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 11 of 11