This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 11/20/2021 at 07:45:35 (UTC).

Greenberg v. HP Inc.

Case Summary

On November 19, 2021, Danielle Greenberg (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Scott David Hirsch of Scott Hirsch Law Group, PLLC, Jason S. Rathod and Nicholas A. Migliaccio of Mifliaccio & Rathod, LLP, David A. Goodwin and Frances Mahoney-Mosedale of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against HP Inc. (“HP” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages with interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, for allegedly misleading consumers about the quality and functionality of the “Class Laptops”. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida with Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks presiding. 

 

In their complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “The Class Laptops all possess a material defect that prevents them from being used as portrayed in HP’s advertising materials, and HP concealed, failed to disclose, or otherwise engaged in deceptive marketing with respect to this defect. As a result, many consumers purchased computers that became practically unusable after just months of use.” 

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Unbeknownst to consumers, the Class Laptops are designed and manufactured with a common inherent defect that, over time, compromises the laptops’ hinges, thus impairing the computer’s portability and functionality. The Class Laptops’ display hinges are defective in that they break off from the poorly secured mounting points at the base of the device (the “Defect”).” 

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “HP concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiff and the Class the defective nature of the Class Laptops, and failed to remove the Class Laptops from the marketplace or take adequate action to remedy the Defect. Rather, HP sold and serviced the Class Laptops even though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the Defect impacted the functionality of the Class Laptops and would ultimately result in Plaintiff’s and Class members’ inability to use their Class Laptops for their intended purpose.” 

 

The Plaintiff has listed out eight claims for relief. The first claim alleged is for the violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). The second claim alleged is for the violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.41 prohibiting misleading advertising. The third and fourth claims alleged are for breach of express and implied warranty, respectively, under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The fifth and sixth claims alleged are for breach of implied and express warranty, respectively. The seventh claim alleged is for unjust enrichment/restitution and the eighth claim alleged is for fraudulent omission or concealment. The Plaintiff also claimed that, as a result of HP’s unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices, Plaintiff and other consumers have purchased HP’s products under the mistaken belief that the Class Laptops possessed high quality, functional hinges that were capable of normal use without damaging the machine. 

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to certify the proposed Class pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and declare that HP violated the Florida statutes and that HP was unjustly enriched by its conduct as described herein. The Plaintiff further requested the Court for monetary, statutory and treble damages with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and in the alternative, restitution, injunctive relief and the disgorgement of all monies received by HP. Furthermore, the Plaintiff requested the Court for a permanent injunction enjoining HP from continuing the unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices described herein, for reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and such other and further relief that the Court deems just and equitable. 

 

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:

    9:21-CV-82107

  • Filing Date:

    11/19/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Donald M. Middlebrooks

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Danielle Greenberg

Defendant

HP Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Daniel E. Gustafson

Attorney at Gustafson Gluek PLLC

120 South 6Th Street, Suite 2600

Minneapolis, MN 55402

David A. Goodwin

Attorney at Gustafson Gluck, PLLC

120 South Sixth St., Suite 2600

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Frances Mahoney-Mosedale

Attorney at Gustafson Gluek PLLC

120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Jason S. Rathod

Attorney at Migliaccio & Rathod

412 H Street North East, Suite 302

Washington, DC 20002

Nicholas A. Migliaccio

Attorney at Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP

412 H. Street, N.E.Suite 302

Washington, DC 20002

Scott David Hirsch

Attorney at Scott Hirsch Law Group, PLLC

6810 North State Road 733073

Coconut Creek, FL 33073

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Summon(s) Summons to HP Inc.

#3

(#3) Summons Issued as to HP Inc. (mee) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

#4

(#4) Corrected Summons Issued as to HP Inc. (mee) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

#5

(#5) Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Jason S. Rathod, Dan E. Gustafson, David A. Goodwin, Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, mailing date November 19, 2021, (pt) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Jason S. Rathod, Dan E. Gustafson, David A. Goodwin, Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, mailing date November 19, 2021, (pt) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Corrected Summons Issued as to HP Inc. (mee) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Summons Issued as to HP Inc. (mee) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • Docket(#2) Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (mee) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15188308, filed by Danielle Greenberg. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s) Summons to HP Inc.)(Hirsch, Scott) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

    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 Scott Hirsch

Latest cases represented by Lawyer David A Goodwin

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jason S. Rathod