Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Molly Moriarty Lane, Bar No. 149206
`molly.lane@morganlewis.com
`Christina Chen, Bar No. 294921
`Christina.chen@morganlewis.com
`One Market
`Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Tel:
`+1.415.442.1000
`Fax: +1.415.442.1001
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HP Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RODNEY CARVALHO and MARK MAHER,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`HP INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 5:21-cv-08015-BLF
`DEFENDANT HP INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`[Filed Concurrently with Request for
`Judicial Notice and [Proposed] Order]
`Hearing Date: May 26, 2022
`Hearing Time: 9:00 am
`
`Honorable Beth L. Freeman
`Judge:
`Courtroom 3 – 5th Floor
`Court:
`Date of FAC Filing:
`12/30/21
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`Case No.: 5:21-cv-08015-BLF
`
`NOTICE OF HP’S MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 26, 2022, at 9:00 am or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard in Courtroom 3 of the San Jose Courthouse of the United States District
`Court, Northern District of California, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California,
`Defendant HP Inc., will and hereby does move this Court for an order dismissing Plaintiffs
`Rodney Carvalho and Mark Maher’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” or the “Complaint”),
`pursuant to 12(b)(6), and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`This case should be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened
`pleading requirements with respect to their fraud-based claims. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
`pled that HP’s advertised strike-through prices were false, or that reasonable consumers would be
`misled by HP’s advertisements. Plaintiffs have also failed to allege the specific contract or
`warranty terms that HP supposedly breached. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional and
`negligent misrepresentation are barred by the economic loss doctrine. Their claim for unjust
`enrichment also fails because it is not an independent cause of action under California law and it
`is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ other claims, and Plaintiffs cannot plausibly assert claims for equitable
`monetary relief when they have adequate remedies at law.
`This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice and the exhibits attached thereto, and the
`complete files and records in this action, and such other argument and evidence as may be
`presented at or before the hearing of this matter.
`
`Dated: January 28, 2022
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`By /s/ Molly Moriarty Lane
`Molly Moriarty Lane
`Christina Chen
`Attorneys for Defendant HP Inc.
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`Case No.: 5:21-cv-08015-BLF
`
`NOTICE OF HP’S MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 30
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs Purchased Products from HP’s Website HP.com .................................... 2
`B.
`HP Advertises Its Products by Comparing Its Prices to the Manufacturer’s
`Retail Sales Price..................................................................................................... 3
`The Statutory Framework Applicable to MSRPs.................................................... 4
`Plaintiffs Omit and Attempt to Avoid HP’s MSRP Disclaimer by Alleging
`Incorrectly that HP’s Reference Prices are Former Prices ...................................... 4
`Plaintiffs’ Abstract Allegations About Time-Limited and Quantity-Limited
`Offers....................................................................................................................... 5
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 6
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud Based Claims Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs
`Have Not Met the Heightened Pleading Standard Required for Pleading
`Them. ...................................................................................................................... 7
`1.
`All of Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Claims Are Subject to a Heightened
`Pleading Standard........................................................................................ 7
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to Meet Their Heightened Pleading Burden
`in Alleging Their Claims for Negligent and Intentional
`Misrepresentation. ....................................................................................... 7
`Plaintiffs Have Also Failed to Meet Their Heightened Pleading
`Burden in Alleging Their CLRA, UCL, and FAL Claims ........................ 10
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Sufficiently Violations of Sections
`17501 and 233.1 ........................................................................................ 13
`Plaintiffs’ Claims for Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation Should
`Also Be Dismissed Because They Are Barred by the Economic Loss
`Doctrine ................................................................................................................. 14
`Plaintiffs’ Contract Based Claims Should Be Dismissed ..................................... 14
`1.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Allege That HP Breached Specific Terms of Any
`Alleged Contract or Warranty Between Them and HP ............................. 15
`Plaintiffs Failed to Provide Notice of Breach Prior to Filing Their
`Complaint .................................................................................................. 16
`Plaintiffs’ FAL Claims Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Have Not
`Alleged That HP Knew Its Strike-Through Prices Were False or
`Misleading ............................................................................................................. 17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`i
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Plaintiffs’ UCL Claims Should Be Dismissed for the Independent Reason
`That Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege that HP Engaged in “Unlawful,”
`“Unfair,” or “Fraudulent” Practices ...................................................................... 18
`Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment Claim Should Be Dismissed Because It Is
`Not an Independent Claim .................................................................................... 19
`Plaintiffs’ Claims for Violations of the UCL, FAL, and for Unjust
`Enrichment Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Have an Adequate
`Remedy at Law ..................................................................................................... 20
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`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
`
`V.
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ii
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Adkins v. Apple Inc.,
`147 F. Supp. 3d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Apple & AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litig.,
`802 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Avila v. Countrywide Home Loans,
`No. 10-CV-05485-LHK, 2011 WL 1192999 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2011) ............................ 19
`
`Bly–Magee v. California,
`236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Branca v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
`No. 14CV2062-MMA (JMA), 2015 WL 10436858 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2015) ........................ 10
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 20
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Cooper v. Pickett,
`137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`E.D.C. Techs., Inc. v. Seidel,
`216 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litigation,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 20
`
`Frenzel v. AliphCom,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 8
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`iii
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................. 7, 19
`
`Haley v. Macy's, Inc.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 819 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Hopkins v. Women's Div., General Bd. of Global Ministries,
`238 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2002) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`In re iPhone 4S Consumer Litig.,
`No. C 12-1127 CW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103058 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) .................... 16
`
`Johnson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,
`793 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Kellman v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-06584-LB, 2018 WL 2938612 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2018) ................................... 16
`
`Knievel v. ESPN,
`393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 18
`
`Loomis v. Slendertone Distribution, Inc.,
`420 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................................... 11
`
`Mahfood v. QVC, Inc.,
`No. SACV060659AGANX, 2007 WL 9363986 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2007) ............................... 9
`
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
`912 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .............................................................................. 10, 18
`
`Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,
`572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Munning v. Gap, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-03804-TEH, 2016 WL 6393550 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016)................................. 15
`
`Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts,
`638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`iv
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Nunez v. Saks Inc.,
`2017 WL 1184058 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) ........................................................................ 10
`
`O'Campo v. Chico Mall, LP,
`758 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Palomares v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortg.,
`07-cv-01899, 2008 WL 686683 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008) ...................................................... 8
`
`Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Grp., Inc.,
`491 F. Supp. 3d 738 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ..................................................................................... 21
`
`Punian v. Gillette Co.,
`2016 WL 1029607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
`No. CV 14–07155 SJO, 2015 WL 1841254 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) ......................... 2, 12, 13
`
`Schroeder v. United States,
`569 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.,
`307 F.R.D. 508 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Sperling v. DSW Inc., No. EDCV151366JGBSPX,
`2016 WL 354319 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) ........................................................................ 1, 13
`
`Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,
`763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 17
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices,
`and Products Liability Litigation,
`754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 – 94 (C.D. Cal. 2010)........................................................................... 20
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari,
`610 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Vavak v. Abbott Lab'ys, Inc.,
`No. SACV 10-1995 JVS RZX, 2011 WL 10550065 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2011) .................... 14
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`v
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-04700-LHK, 2020 WL 6743911 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ......................... 20, 21
`
`Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 11, 13
`
`Zetz v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`398 F. Supp. 3d 700 (E.D. Cal. 2019) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`State Cases
`
`Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
`205 Cal. App. 4th 1176 (2012)................................................................................................ 19
`
`State v. Amoco Oil Co.,
`97 Wis. 2d 226 (1980) ............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`152 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2007)................................................................................................ 19
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011)................................................................................................ 11
`
`Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003).................................................................................................. 11
`
`Lazar v. Hertz Corp.,
`69 Cal. App. 4th 1494 (1999).................................................................................................. 18
`
`Medina v. SafeGuard Prods., Inc.,
`164 Cal. App. 4th 105 (2008).................................................................................................. 18
`
`Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharm., Inc.,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 1336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) ......................................................................... 18
`
`Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`9 Cal. 5th 279 (2020) .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`North Am. Chemical Co. v. Sup. Ct.,
`59 Cal. App. 4th 764 (1997).................................................................................................... 14
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.,
`34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`vi
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`State Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 ........................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17501. ............................................................................ 1, 5, 13, 14, 18
`
`Cal. Com. Code, § 2607(3)(A) ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) ........................................................................... passim
`
`California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) ......................................................... passim
`
`California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) ........................................................................ passim
`
`Regulations
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233, et seq. ...................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5,12
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.1 ...................................................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.1(a) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.2(c) ...................................................................................................................... 13
`
`16 C.F.R. §233.3(d) ........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`16 C.F.R. §233.3(g) ........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.5 .......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`16 CFR § 233.2 (a)-(b) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................................. 1, 6, 21
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(3) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ...................................................................... 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 21
`
`Attorney General Opinion No. 57–126 ......................................................................................... 14
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`vii
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Defendant HP Inc. (“HP”) moves to dismiss the claims alleged by Plaintiffs Rodney
`Carvalho (“Plaintiff Carvalho”) and Mark Maher (“Plaintiff Maher, and together with Carvalho,
`the “Plaintiffs”) in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” or the “Complaint”), pursuant to
`Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`The crux of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is their incorrect characterization of the strike-through
`prices HP lists in connection with some products on HP.com as “former” or “reference” prices.
`They are not, and HP does not present them as such. To the contrary, and despite Plaintiffs’
`effort to distance themselves from the content of the very web pages on which they purport to rely
`in making their claims, HP expressly explains in a clear disclaimer that the strike-through prices
`are instead Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Prices (“MSRPs”).
`While Plaintiffs attempt to prop up their claims by citing to and relying on California
`Business & Professions Code section 17501 (“Section 17501”) and 16 C.F.R. section 233.3
`(“Section 233.3”), those provisions are irrelevant here because they regulate advertisements
`relating to “former” or “original” prices – not MSRPs (which are governed by a different
`statutory framework). Indeed, the FTC has acknowledged that MSRPs are judged by a different
`standard, that is, whether the strike-through price is provided “in good faith (i.e., as an honest
`estimate of the actual retail price) which does not appreciably exceed the highest price at which
`substantial sales are made in the trade area.” Plaintiffs fail to include in their Complaint any
`allegations that meet this standard. For that reason, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed. But
`there are several other grounds that warrant dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, including the
`following:
` Plaintiffs have failed to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements with
`respect to their fraud-based claims in that they have not pled sufficiently that the
`MSRP prices were false, did not represent the prevailing market price or that
`reasonable consumers would be misled by Defendants’ advertisements. See, e.g.,
`Sperling v. DSW Inc., No. EDCV151366JGBSPX, 2016 WL 354319, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
`
`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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`Jan. 28, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Sperling v. DSWC, Inc., 699 F. App'x 654 (9th Cir.
`2017); Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. CV 14–07155 SJO (JPRx),
`2015 WL 1841254, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015).
` Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation are barred by the
`economic loss doctrine because Plaintiffs seek only economic damages rather than
`damages for personal injury, physical damage, or that are different than what they seek
`by way of their contract-based claims.
` Plaintiffs have failed to allege the specific contract or warranty terms that HP
`supposedly breached. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to provide HP with pre-suit notice
`of those claims, which they were required to do to assert them.
` Plaintiffs have failed to allege in connection with their claims for violations of the
`California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) that HP knew its strike-through prices were
`false or misleading.
` Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficiently that HP’s alleged practices were unfair,
`unlawful, or fraudulent under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).
` Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment is not recognized as an independent cause of
`action under California law and it is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ other claims.
` And, Plaintiffs cannot plausibly assert claims for equitable monetary relief when they
`have adequate remedies at law.
` For all of the foregoing reasons, and as discussed in greater detail below, Plaintiffs’ claims
`should be dismissed in their entirety.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Plaintiffs Purchased Products from HP’s Website HP.com
`A.
`HP sells laptops, desktops, printers, computer accessories, and other products on its
`website, HP.com. FAC at ¶¶ 32-37.
`Plaintiff Carvalho alleges that, on September 7, 2021, he purchased from HP’s website an
`All-in-One 24-dp1056qe PC desktop (the “Desktop PC”) and an HP X3000 G2 Wireless Mouse
`(the “Mouse”). FAC at ¶¶ 52-62. The Desktop PC was listed at a price of $899.99, which was
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`2
`MOTION TO DISMISS 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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`displayed next to a strike-through price of $999 and advertised as a savings of $100. Id. at ¶ 10.
`Plaintiff Carvalho further alleges that he purchased the Mouse at a sale price of $11.99,
`discounted from a strike-through price of $16.99. Id. at ¶¶ 55, 56. He also received an additional
`5% discount off of his purchase with a Labor Day coupon. Id. at ¶ 58.
`Plaintiff Maher alleges that he purchased an HP Laptop 17t-by400 (the “Laptop”) for a
`price of $599.99, for which HP advertised savings of $130 off the strike-through price of $729.99.
`FAC at ¶ 68.
`
`B.
`
`HP Advertises Its Products by Comparing Its Prices to the Manufacturer’s
`Retail Sales Price
`
`In offering some of its products for sale on HP.com, HP displays a strike-through amount
`next to the sales price for such items. For example, the product listing for the Desktop PC that
`Plaintiff Carvalho purchased included a strike-through amount of $999 ($999.99) displayed next
`to the sales price of $899. FAC at ¶ 10. In some instances, the product listing also displays a
`purchaser’s potential savings, equal to the difference between the strike-through amount and the
`sales price. In other instances, the HP.com site provides information about other opportunities for
`purchasers to obtain additional discounts through special deals and sales. Id.
`Contrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations, however, the strike-through prices listed on the product
`listings for the products Plaintiffs purchased were not “former” or “reference” prices. Instead,
`they represented the MSRP for those products. And, at the time that Plaintiffs purchased their
`products, HP advised its customers, including Plaintiffs, that the strike-through prices represented
`MSRPs.
` Indeed, HP’s website includes a disclaimer explaining this at the bottom of the page
`when a customer clicks on a product listing. For example, HP included the following disclaimer
`on the product listings that both Plaintiffs accessed on the dates of their purchases:
`HP’s MSRP is subject to discount. HP’s MSRP price is shown as either a stand-
`alone price or as a strike-through price with a discounted or promotional price
`also listed. Discounted or promotional pricing is indicated by the presence of an
`additional higher MSRP strike-through price[.]
`3
`
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`MOTION TO DISMISS 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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`See HP’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“RJN”), Exh. A
`[Screenshot of Disclaimer on HP.com Dated May 30, 2021]. Because Plaintiffs’ allegations are
`contradicted by documents that are referenced in the Complaint and omit information from the
`web pages that are embedded within and relied upon by the Complaint, the court need not accept
`Plaintiffs’ allegations as true in deciding this motion. See Johnson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg.
`Corp., 793 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).
`
`The Statutory Framework Applicable to MSRPs
`C.
`Pursuant to Section 233.3, the FTC has established guidelines for the advertisement of
`MRSPs, and other forms of manufacturers’ retail prices. Section 233.3 is part of the Federal
`Trade Commission's 1964 Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 CFR Part 233, (the “Pricing
`Guides”), which address various pricing representations made by marketers, manufacturers, and
`retailers.
`The FTC recognized in Section 233.3(g) that retailers like HP who do business on a
`“national [] scale cannot be required to police or investigate in detail the prevailing prices of his
`articles throughout so large a trade area.” 16 C.F.R. §233.3(g). There is no temporal limitation to
`the provisions of Section 233.3. Instead, for national manufacturers, “[i]f [the retailer] advertises
`or disseminates a list or preticketed price in good faith (i.e., as an honest estimate of the actual
`retail price) which does not appreciably exceed the highest price at which substantial sales are
`made in his trade area, he will not be chargeable with having engaged in a deceptive practice.”
`Id. The FTC has defined “substantial” to mean “not isolated or insignificant.” 16 C.F.R.
`§233.3(d).
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs Omit and Attempt to Avoid HP’s MSRP Disclaimer by Alleging
`Incorrectly that HP’s Reference Prices are Former Prices
`
`Omitting and contradicting the express MSRP disclaimer on the very shopping pages they
`rely on in the FAC, Plaintiffs premise their claims on their incorrect assertion that HP’s strike-
`through prices are “false reference prices” or “former” prices that do not represent the bona fide
`prices at which HP formerly sold its products. Based on this incorrect allegation, Plaintiffs
`contend that HP violated section 17501 because: (i) HP did not sell Carvalho’s Desktop PC and
`MEM. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO
`4
`MOTION TO DISMISS 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
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS &
`BOCKIUS LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`LOS ANGELES
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/28/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`Mouse at the strike-through price in the three months preceding Carvalho’s purchase, FAC at ¶¶
`2, 64, 65, 82, 177, 184, 189; (ii) in the months before Carvalho's purchase, HP "rarely, if ever,"
`offered the Desktop PC at the strike-through price of $999.99, FAC at ¶ 4; and (iii) HP “never”1
`offered the Laptop that Maher purchased for the base price of $729.99.
`Plaintiffs also claim that HP violated 16 C.F.R. § 233.1, allegedly because HP’s reference
`prices are not the actual prices at which HP formerly sold the product for a “reasonably
`substantial period of time.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 49, 50, 78, 82, 113, 114, 126, 127, 165, 175-184, 180.
`But the pricing laws on which Plaintiffs rely do not apply here at all because they regulate
`only advertisement of “former prices,”