Hopkins v. Dell Technologies, Inc.

On October 23, 2022, Sandra Hopkins (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Spencer I. Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against Dell Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief with damages for alleged failure to fulfill duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and marketing of the product. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, with Judge David W. Dugan presiding. 

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Dell Technologies, Inc. (‘Defendant’) manufactures, markets, and/or sells the Inspiron 15 3000 Series of laptop computers under the Dell brand with lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries (‘Product’).”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Plaintiff bought the Product because she 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.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “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.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “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 her ability to use it.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “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.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged, “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.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “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.”

The plaintiff presented five claims for relief, including alleged breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, State Consumer Fraud Acts, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested injunctive relief along with an award of monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages with interest, cost, and attorneys’ fees.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.