This case was last updated from PACER on 10/14/2021 at 05:39:40 (UTC).

Carvalho v. HP, Inc.

Case Summary

On October 13, 2021, Rodney Carvalho (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Daniel Allen Rozenblatt of EDGE, A Professional Law Corporation, and Seth Wesley Wiener of Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener, filed a class action lawsuit against HP Inc. (“HP” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages along with prejudgement and post-judgement interest among other relief for the alleged negligent misrepresentation and false advertising by Defendant. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Nathanael M. Cousins presiding.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “This is a class action against HP for false advertising on its website, HP.com. HP is the largest computer seller in the United States. To sell more products and maximize its profits, HP displays false reference prices on its website and advertises false savings based on those prices. The reference prices are false because they do not represent the actual prices at which HP regularly sells its products.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “HP’s false reference prices also harm competition by giving HP an unfair advantage over other computer manufacturers that do not engage in false reference pricing. After all, a customer is more likely to purchase a $2,000 computer advertised at 50% off its regular price than pay full price for a $1,000 computer” and “HP’s pricing scheme is misleading because the savings advertised on its website (which are based on the advertised reference prices) do not represent the actual savings customers receive, as Plaintiff and reasonable consumers understand that term.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “Plaintiff desires to make purchases on HP’s website in the future and would make such purchases if he could be certain that the reference prices displayed on HP’s website represented the bona fide former prices of HP’s products and that the advertised savings represented the actual savings he would receive based on bona fide former prices” and “Plaintiff is susceptible to HP’s ongoing false advertising scheme because he cannot be certain whether HP has corrected its deceptive pricing practices.”

 

There are nine claims of relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged breach of contract. The second claim is for the alleged breach of express warranty. The third and fourth claims are for the alleged negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation, respectively. The fifth claim is for the alleged unjust enrichment. The sixth claim is for the alleged violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. The seventh claim is for the alleged violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501. The eighth claim is for the alleged violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. The ninth claim is for the alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to certify this action as class action and appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the class. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for injunctive relief and an award for restitution and/or other equitable relief, including, without limitation, disgorgement of all money HP improperly acquired from Plaintiff along with actual damages, punitive damages, cost of suit, and prejudgement and post-judgement interest along with any other relief the court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    5:21-CV-08015

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Nathanael M. Cousins

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Rodney Carvalho

Defendant

HP, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Seth Wesley Wiener

Attorney at Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener

609 Karina Court

San Ramon, CA 94582

Daniel Allen Rozenblatt

Attorney at EDGE, A Professional Law Corporation

1341 La Playa Street 20

San Francisco, CA 94122

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

#3

#4

#6

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE of Appearance by Seth Wesley Wiener (Wiener, Seth) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docket(#5) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/27/2021. (asS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) AFFIDAVIT RE: CLRA VENUE by Rodney Carvalho. (Rozenblatt, Daniel) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Certificate of Interested Entities by Rodney Carvalho (Rozenblatt, Daniel) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Rozenblatt, Daniel) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against HP, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16492854.). Filed byRodney Carvalho. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rozenblatt, Daniel) (Filed on 10/13/2021) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HP, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Seth W Wiener