Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 20
`
` 
`
`STEVEN I HOCHFELSEN, ESQ (Bar No. 129491)
`steve@hockani.com
`DAVID W. KANI, ESQ. (Bar No. 243032)
`dkani@hockani.com
`HOCHFELSEN & KANI, LLP
`895 Dove St., Suite 300
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`Telephone: (714) 907-0697
`
`BRIAN H. MAHANY, ESQ (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`brian@mahanylaw.com
`MAHANY LAW
`8112 W. Bluemound Road
`P.O. Box 511328
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ROBERT FELTER
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT FELTER, on his own behalf and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`vs.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Texas
`Corporation, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`1. BREACH OF CONTRACT AND
`WARRANTY
`2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
`CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES
`ACT, CIVIL CODE § 1750, et seq.
`3. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR
`BUSINESS PRACTICES,
`CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §
`17200, et seq.
`4. FALSE ADVERTISING,
`CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §
`17500, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‐ 1 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
`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
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 20
`
` 
`
`Plaintiff Robert Felter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, complains and
`
`alleges, by and through his attorneys, upon personal knowledge and information and belief, as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This Complaint is necessary to redress the greed of Defendant, Dell Technologies
`
`(“Dell”), practiced to the detriment of its consumers. Dell intentionally misled and deceived the
`
`public in order to create a competitive advantage based on false representation to boost sales of
`
`its flagship gaming laptop, the Alienware Area 51M R1 (“Area 51M R1”), in the intensely
`
`competitive gaming laptop market segment.
`
`2.
`
`It did so by affirmatively and falsely misrepresenting characteristics and qualities
`
`of the Area 51M R1 that it knew did not exist, to lure unsuspecting customers to pay a higher
`
`price for the Area 51M R1 than it merited without the represented qualities and characteristics,
`
`and to choose the Area 51M R1 over other competing products, which might have been chosen
`
`had Dell accurately, and truthfully described the quality and characteristics of the Area 51M R1.
`
`3.
`
`Most prominently, Dell falsely advertised to consumers that the Area 51M R1's
`
`core hardware components, its Central Processing Unit (“CPU”), and its Graphics Processing
`
`Unit (“GPU”) (CPU and GPU are at times collectively referred to as “Core Components”), were
`
`fully upgradeable to future Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs.
`
`4.
`
`Core Components across different brands of gaming laptops are virtually identical
`
`with all manufacturers offering the same Intel CPUs and the same NVIDIA GPUs. For this
`
`reason, manufacturers are forced to differentiate and market their products based on other criteria
`
`such as price, aesthetics, and/or other unique features.
`
`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
`
`‐ 2 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 20
`
` 
`
`5.
`
`Core Components act as the central and graphics engines of a computer and are
`
`responsible for gaming performance. Unlike desktop computers, laptops have traditionally been
`
`built with permanently affixed CPUs and GPUs, making them impossible to remove and thus to
`
`upgrade. As a result, consumers are unable to swap their laptop's existing Core Components for
`
`faster, more powerful, next generation CPUs and GPUs. Rather, consumers must purchase an
`
`entirely new laptop when seeking an upgrade to next generation Core Components powerful
`
`enough to play the latest, and more technologically demanding, computer games. This quality,
`
`in particular, limits the usable life, and consequently, the market value of gaming laptops. Dell’s
`
`representation that the Area 51M had “unprecedented upgradeability” appeared to remove this
`
`limitation on product life and market value.
`
`6.
`
`To the gaming consumer, this “unprecedented upgradeability” as Dell described
`
`it, i.e. a laptop that is upgradeable like a desktop, is the elusive holy grail of mobile computing.
`
`Dell went as far as to call the Area 51M a “mobile desktop” to further cement its alleged material
`
`capability that the Area 51M is upgradeable in the same way a desktop is upgradeable.
`
`7.
`
`The Area 51M was released in Summer of 2019, about a year before the end of
`
`the life cycle of its Core Component offerings. NVIDIA was set to release, and did release, its
`
`updated, more powerful, mobile GPUs, the RTX 2060 SUPER, RTX 2070 SUPER and RTX
`
`2080 SUPER in or about June 2020, and its highly anticipated next generation GPUs, the RTX
`
`3000 series in the fall of 2020, which it released in September 2020. Additionally, INTEL was
`
`set to release its 10th generation CPUs in or about the second quarter of 2020. As such, without
`
`the represented “unprecedented upgradeability,” consumers had little incentive to purchase the
`
`Area 51M, which cost upwards of $5000 when fully optioned, knowing that its Core
`
`Components would become outdated in less than one year.
`
`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
`
`‐ 3 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 4 of 20
`
` 
`
`8.
`
`Dell released the Area 51M R1 near the end of the life cycle of its CPU and GPU.
`
`As such, Dell knew it had to address consumers’ hesitation to purchase the Area 51M R1 shortly
`
`before its Core Components became outdated. To that end, Dell represented that the Area 51M's
`
`Core Components were upgradeable, thereby addressing any hesitation or apprehension
`
`consumers had regarding its soon to be outdated Core Components.
`
`9.
`
` In reality, the Area 51M R1’s Core Components were not upgradeable. Dell has
`
`admitted that. Dell falsely told consumers that the Area 51M R1’s Core Components were
`
`upgradeable to motivate buyers unwilling to purchase a gaming laptop near the end of its Core
`
`Components’ generational life cycle and to create a significant (though false) competitive
`
`advantage against other gaming laptop manufacturers, as no other company offered a laptop with
`
`such capability at the time the Area 51M R1went on sale.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs therefore seek restitution from Dell for violation of the False
`
`Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, and
`
`injunctive relief pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Robert Felter (“Plaintiff”) is an individual residing in the state of
`
`California and the County of San Francisco. Plaintiff purchased an Area 51M R1 for
`
`approximately $2700.00, in or about July 1, 2020.
`
`12.
`
`On personal knowledge, Plaintiffs purchased the Area 51M R1 for personal use
`
`and entertainment, and not for resale or distribution.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs decided to purchase the Area 51M R1 after viewing Defendant's
`
`advertisements and promotional material online, including on Defendant's own website, which
`
`represented that the laptop’s Core Components were upgradeable.
`
`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
`
`‐ 4 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 5 of 20
`
` 
`
`14.
`
`The represented upgradeability of the Area 51M’s Core Components to future
`
`Core Components was a material factor in Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the unit.
`
`15.
`
`On or about June 2020, NVIDIA upgraded its RTX 2000 series GPUs to the RTX
`
`SUPER 2000 in the form of the RTX 2060 SUPER, RTX 2070 SUPER, and RTX 2080 SUPER.
`
`In the second quarter of 2020, INTEL released its upgraded CPUs in the form of the INTEL 10th
`
`generation CPU.
`
`16.
`
`Or about June 12, 2020, Dell released the Alienware Area 51M R2 which carried
`
`the new INTEL 10th generation CPU and the new NVIDIA RTX SUPER 2000 series.
`
`17.
`
`After his purchase, Plaintiff later inquired about upgrading his Area 51M’s Core
`
`Components but learned that, contrary to Dell’s repeated promises that the Area 51M is
`
`upgradeable, none of the Area 51M’s Core Components were, in fact, upgradeable in any way.
`
`The Area 51M’s CPU was not upgradeable to the new INTEL 10th generation CPU, nor was its
`
`GPU upgradeable to the new NVIDIA RTX SUPER 2000 series. In fact, the only way Plaintiff
`
`could own a laptop with these newly released upgraded Core Components was to spend several
`
`thousand dollars more than what an upgrade would cost to purchase the then-newly released
`
`Alienware Area 51M R2 or a similarly equipped laptop from another manufacturer.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`18.
`
`Alienware is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dell Technologies conglomerate, a
`
`multinational computer technology company headquartered in Round Rock, Texas, that
`
`develops, sells, repairs and supports computers and related products. Dell maintains a number of
`
`offices in California, including in Irvine, and in Santa Clara.
`
`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
`
`‐ 5 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 6 of 20
`
` 
`
`19.
`
`Dell purchased Alienware in 2006 to gain a foothold in the computer gaming
`
`market segment and retains control over its operations, design, manufacturing, sales, and
`
`marketing of its products, including the Area 51M R1. Dell also distributes Alienware products,
`
`to purchasers, resellers, and distributors in California, as well as throughout the country. Dell
`
`sells the Area 51M R1 on its website as well as various traditional and online retail outlets. Dell's
`
`gaming related products generated approximately $3 Billion in sales in 2019.
`
`20.
`
`Each reference made in this Complaint to any corporate Defendant includes its
`
`predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions of the corporation for the
`
`corresponding time period in any way involved in the design, manufacture, promotion,
`
`distribution and/or sale of the Area 51M R1.
`
`21.
`
`The true and precise names and capacities of Doe Defendants 1-20, inclusive, are
`
`unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and therefore are designated and named as Defendant under
`
`fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when and if Plaintiff identifies their true
`
`identities and involvement in the wrongdoing alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and
`
`alleges thereon that, at all times mentioned herein, each fictitiously named Defendant is
`
`responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences alleged herein, and that the damages,
`
`as alleged herein, were proximately caused by Doe Defendants.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges thereon, that at all times mentioned
`
`here, each of the Defendants was the agent, representative, and/or employee of each of the other
`
`Defendants. Moreover, that, in the conduct hereafter alleged, each of the Defendants was acting
`
`within the course and scope of such alternative personality, capacity, identify, agency,
`
`representation, and/or employment and was within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
`
`apparent.
`
`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
`
`‐ 6 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 7 of 20
`
` 
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff is informed believes and alleges thereon that, at all times mentioned
`
`herein, the Defendants were the trustees, partners, servant, joint ventures, shareholders,
`
`contractors, and/or employees of the other, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done
`
`by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and
`
`with the permission and consent of each of the other or that said conduct was thereafter ratified
`
`by each of the other, and that each of them are jointly and severally liability to Plaintiff.
`
`24.
`
`Each reference in this complaint to any corporate Defendant includes its
`
`predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions of the corporation for the
`
`corresponding time period in any way involved in the design, manufacture, promotion,
`
`distribution and/or sale of the Area 51M R1.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`25.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class
`
`Act Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiffs allege and believe this action occurs under the
`
`laws of the United States, and that there are: (i) 100 or more class members; (ii) the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; (iii) at least
`
`one member of the plaintiff class is from a different state than the Defendant.
`
`26.
`
`This court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`27.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
`
`maintain substantial operations in this District, Class members either reside or engaged in
`
`business transitions with Defendant in this District, Defendant engaged in business and made
`
`representations in this District, and a substantial party of the events or omissions giving rise to
`
`Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District.
`
`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
`
`‐ 7 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 8 of 20
`
` 
`
`28.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are
`
`registered and authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and Defendants conduct
`
`business in the State of California by selling and/or distributing various consumer electronics,
`
`including but not limited to the Area 51M R1, within this District and throughout the State of
`
`California.
`
`29.
`
`At no time prior to Plaintiffs’ purchase did Dell disclose to Plaintiffs that the Area
`
`51M R1’s Core Components were, in fact, not upgradeable and that consumers would have to
`
`purchase an entire new laptop when NVIDIA and Intel released their next GPUs and CPUs
`
`respectively.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`30.
`
`Dell announced the Area 51M R1 in summer of 2019 as its flagship gaming
`
`laptop and focused its marketing campaign on showcasing a new and purportedly revolutionary
`
`proprietary modular design which allowed it to carry a desktop grade NVIDIA GPU and a newly
`
`designed desktop style INTEL CPU socket which allowed it to carry a full strength, removable
`
`desktop CPU.
`
`31.
`
`As part of Dell’s marketing scheme for the Area 51M R1, Dell, uniformly and
`
`explicitly, told consumers that this unique modular design and the desktop style CPU socket,
`
`which allowed Core Components to be easily removed and not be permanently affixed directly to
`
`the motherboard of the laptop itself as laptop Core Components traditionally had been, provided
`
`the mechanism which allowed the Area 51M R1 to be upgraded with future Core Component
`
`offerings from NVIDIA and INTEL without having to replace the entire laptop. Defendant’s
`
`marketing of the Area 51M R1 was intended to and did create a reasonable expectation among
`
`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
`
`‐ 8 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 9 of 20
`
` 
`
`buyers that the Area 51M R1 would, in fact, conform with such specifications and be
`
`upgradeable.
`
`32.
`
`Dell’s representations of the upgradability of the Area 51M R1 also extended to
`
`units that were equipped with the fasted, most advanced Core Components available to the
`
`market, thus creating a reasonable expectation with consumers that the upgradability of the Area
`
`51M R1 extended to yet to be released INTEL CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs, and did in fact create
`
`such expectations with consumers.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s material representations regarding the upgradeability of the Area
`
`51M R1's Core Components were categorically false. Dell itself has since admitted that the Area
`
`51M R1’s Core Components are not upgradeable.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant intentionally omitted disclosing material facts to the public to conceal
`
`the fact that the Area 51M R1’s Core Components were not upgradeable to future versions of
`
`Intel CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs. Consumers were misled by Dell’s false and misleading
`
`marketing campaign and paid a significant premium for the Area 51M R1 under the incorrect
`
`belief that this “unprecedented upgradeability” would save them money in the long run by
`
`allowing them to upgrade their laptop’s Core Components rather than having to purchase an
`
`entirely new upgraded laptop. Indeed, some paid approximately $5,000 for the Area 51M R1,
`
`specifically relying on Dell’s material representations that it was upgradeable.
`
`35.
`
`The above described “unprecedented upgradeability” were material statements to
`
`Plaintiff and to the presumptive members of the Class. The rapid advancements to CPU and GPU
`
`technology render gaming laptops obsolete in two to three years. Computer game developers are
`
`quick to take advantage of the newest and latest graphical capabilities of new generation GPUs
`
`and the processing power of new CPUs to create visually compelling titles, which older chipsets
`
`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
`
`‐ 9 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 10 of 20
`
` 
`
`are unable to run at playable framerates. Dell’s promise of upgradeability meant that Area 51M
`
`R1 owners could extend the life of their devices by upgrading Core Components rather than by
`
`purchasing a new laptop.
`
`36.
`
`Dell knew or should have known that the Area 51M R1 was not and could not be
`
`upgraded. Dell works closely with NVIDIA and INTEL and is provided detailed design
`
`specifications for their chipsets well in advance of their release so that it can design, build, and
`
`manufacture laptops that are compatible with these chipsets. Yet, despite being in possession of
`
`such designs, and with the full knowledge that the design of the Area 51M R1 could not
`
`accommodate future NVIDIA and INTEL chipsets, Dell launched a global campaign to mislead
`
`the public that the Area 51M R1 was upgradeable.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff and the presumptive Class members were exposed to Dell’s false and
`
`misleading marketing campaign for the Area 51M R1, as alleged herein, and purchased at least
`
`one unit in response thereto. Plaintiff and the presumptive Class were sold a laptop that does not
`
`comport, perform, or have the capabilities or characteristics Dell advertised it to possess, thus
`
`they have not received the benefit of their bargain. Plaintiff and the purported Class members
`
`who purchased the Area 51M R1 that supposedly was upgradeable to later generation INTEL
`
`CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs, must now pay a significant premium to obtain a computer using the
`
`later generation INTEL CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs, and thus have sustained an injury in fact or
`
`have suffered damages as a result of Dell’s false and misleading advertising campaign, as they
`
`did not receive a product with the characteristics for which they paid.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff and/or the presumptive Class members he seeks to represent suffered
`
`damages, injury and/or loss of money or property as a result of Dell’s conduct as alleged herein.
`
`Plaintiff thus seeks damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs and all
`
`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
`
`‐ 10 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 11 of 20
`
` 
`
`other relief as permitted by law on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as
`
`applicable to the causes of action set forth herein.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`39.
`The class claims all derive directly from a single course of conduct by Defendants:
`their systematic and uniform refusal to provide upgrades to the Core Components as advertised
`and marketed to Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.
`40.
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and/or
`23(b)(3), as well as (23(c)(4), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality,
`adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly
`
`situated as members of both a regional class and California state class. Those Classes are defined
`
`below.
`
`42.
`
`Regional Class
`
`All individuals residing in the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
`
`Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington who purchased a Dell Alienware Area
`
`51M R1 gaming laptop at retail for personal use and entertainment and not for
`
`purposes of resale and/or distribution since the release of the Area 51M R1 in 2019.
`
`This class is referred to as the “Regional Class.”
`
`43.
`
`California Subclass
`
`All individuals residing in the State of California who purchased a Dell Alienware
`Area 51M R1 gaming laptop at retail for personal use and entertainment and not
`for purposes of resale and/or distribution since the release of the Area 51M R1 in
`2019. This class is referred to as the “California Subclass.”
`
`‐ 11 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
`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
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 12 of 20
`
` 
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Unless otherwise specified, the Regional Class and California Subclass are
`
`referred to collectively as the “Class”.
`
`45.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definitions and to seek recovery on
`behalf of additional persons as warranted as additional facts are learned in further investigation
`and discovery.
`46.
`The following are excluded from the proposed Classes: (1) Defendant and their
`
`officers, directors, employees; (2) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such
`
`excluded person; (3) class counsel and their employees and immediate family members; (4)
`
`persons whose claims against Defendant have otherwise been fully and finally adjudicated and/or
`
`released.
`
`47.
`
`This action has been brought and may properly be maintained on behalf of the
`
`Class as proposed herein under the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
`
`predominance, and/or superiority criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`48.
`
`This action satisfies the requirements of Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class is
`
`sufficiently numerous such that individual joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact
`
`size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff at this time; however, Plaintiff
`
`believes that the Class includes thousands of individuals.
`
`49.
`
`This action satisfies the requirements of Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3)
`
`because this action involves many common questions of law and fact which predominate over
`
`any questions that may affect individual members of the proposed Class. These common
`
`questions included, but are not limited to:
`
`‐ 12 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
`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
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`a. Whether Defendant’s statements and representations regarding the Area 51M R1
`
`as alleged herein were false or misleading or reasonably likely to mislead
`
`consumers targeted and exposed to such statements;
`
`b. Whether Defendant had no factual basis for making such claims before making
`
`them, and at what time they became aware that that their claims were false and
`
`misleading;
`
`c. Whether Defendant’s failure to disclose that the Area 51M R1 did not possess the
`
`“unprecedented upgradeability” they advertised it to have was material and would
`
`likely mislead a reasonable consumer;
`
`d. Whether the Area 51M R1 performed as advertised in terms of its advertised
`
`upgradeable capabilities;
`
`e. Whether Defendant were able to charge a price premium for the Area 51M R1s
`
`and the amount of such premium;
`
`f. Whether Defendant entered into and breached express or implied agreements and
`
`warranties implied by law or by equity;
`
`g. Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business
`
`practices regarding the Area 51M R1 in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
`
`17200, et seq.;
`
`h. Whether Defendant represented, through words or conduct, that the Area 51M R1
`
`provided benefits that it did not have in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
`
`17200, et seq.; and § 17500, et seq., as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act;
`
`and
`
`‐ 13 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
`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
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 14 of 20
`
` 
`
`i. Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by the wrongs complained of
`
`herein, whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to injunctive and/or equitable
`
`relief, including damages, restitution, disgorgement or other applicable remedies,
`
`and if so, the nature and amount of such relief.
`
`50.
`
`This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class and arise from the
`
`same course of conduct by Defendant.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class members are similarly affected by Defendant’s false and
`
`misleading advertising campaign and, as a result, sustained damages due to Defendant’s uniform
`
`wrongful conduct.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are based upon the same legal theories as those of the other
`
`Class members and the relief sought by Plaintiff is typical of the relief sought for the absent
`
`Class members.
`
`53.
`
`This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) because Plaintiff
`
`will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel
`
`competent and experienced in complex class actions involving consumer protection class action,
`
`and Plaintiff.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no
`
`defenses that are unique to Plaintiff.
`
`55.
`
`This action satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) as Plaintiff seeks
`
`class-wide adjudication as to all issues alleged herein, on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Class.
`
`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
`
`‐ 14 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 15 of 20
`
` 
`
`56.
`
`This case is also appropriate for class certification because class proceedings are
`
`superior to all other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy,
`
`given, among other things, that joinder of all parties is impracticable.
`
`57.
`
`The damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will likely be
`
`relatively small, particularly given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the
`
`complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.
`
`58.
`
`Even if members of the proposed Class could sustain such individual litigation, it
`
`would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would increase the
`
`delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies alleged herein.
`
`By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits
`
`of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.
`
`Defendant have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final
`
`injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole
`
`appropriate.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Breach of Contract and Warranty
`By Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant
`
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporates by reference all the
`
`59.
`
`allegations set forth above.
`
`60.
`
`The written documentation included with the Area 51M R1 and in its advertising,
`
`Dell expressly stated and offered that the Area 51M R1 is upgradeable to yet to be released
`
`INTEL CPUs and NVIDIA GPUs, creating a reasonable expectation that these laptops’ Core
`
`Components were indeed upgradeable, and that consumers would thus only have to pay the cost
`
`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
`
`‐ 15 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 16 of 20
`
` 
`
`of upgrading those parts, rather than buying an entire new laptop. Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`members accepted this offer and purchased the Area 51M R1. Dell, approximately one year after
`
`the release of the Area 51M R1, admitted that the laptop is in fact, not upgradeable to Intel’s 10th
`
`generation CPU, nor is it upgradeable to NVIDIA’s RTX SUPER 2000 series GPUs, and that
`
`consumers must purchase, at a significant premium, the Dell Alienware Area 51M R2 to have
`
`access to the new, upgraded, core component offering by INTEL and NVIDIA.
`
`61.
`
`Dell’s statements as alleged herein that constitute an affirmative fact and/or
`
`promise, and a description of the Area 51M R1 stating that Core Components were indeed
`
`upgradeable. Dell’s statements regarding the upgradability of the Area 51M R1 were material
`
`and part of the basis of the bargain.
`
`62.
`
`The express warranties and warranties implied by law and through Dell’s
`
`advertising that highlighted the Area 51M R1’s core characteristic of “unprecedented
`
`upgradeability” caused Plaintiff and Class to purchase these laptops.
`
`63.
`
` Area 51M R1 was to conform to the promises and representations made by
`
`Defendant, be merchantable and pass without objection in the trade and industry, and to perform
`
`consistent with the specified represented purposed of being upgradeable.
`
`64.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendant have breached these agreements and warranties and
`
`are unable or unwilling to honor such agreements and warranties. Plaintiff and Class members
`
`thus are unable to receive the benefit of their bargain.
`
`65.
`
`As a result of this breach, Plaintiff and the Class have been injured, and are
`
`entitled to a laptop that conforms with Dell’s original promises of upgradeability at no additional
`
`cost, other than the cost of a replacement CPU and GPU or be given the opportunity to return
`
`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
`
`‐ 16 ‐ 
` 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT  
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04187 Document 1 Filed 06/02/21 Page 17 of 20
`
` 
`
`their Area 51M R1s for repayment, or are entitled to damages to compensate then for the loss of
`
`the benefit of their bargain.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
`By Plaintiff and the Class Against Defendant
`(California Subclass only)
`
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the California Subclass, re-alleges and
`
`
`
`incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff and the California Subclass are consumers as defined by California’s
`
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
`
`68.
`
`The Dell Alienware Area 51M R1 laptops are goods within the meaning of the
`
`CLRA.
`
`69.
`
`Dell violated Civil Code § 1770(a)(5) by representing that the Area 51M R1 had
`
`certain characteristics, uses, and benefits that it did not have.
`
`70.
`
`Dell violated Civil Code § 1770(a)(7) by representing that the Area 51M R1 was
`
`of a particular standard or quality when it fact it was not.
`
`71.
`
`Dell violated Civil Code § 1770(a)(9) by advertising goods or services with no
`
`intent to sell them as advertised.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff and the California Subclass relied on Dell’s representations and
`
`omissions in deciding whether to purchase the Area 51M R1.
`
`73.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Dell’s conduct, Plaintiff and the California
`
`Subclass have suffered injury and damage in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`74.
`
`At this time, Plaintiff disclaims damages under the CLRA,