Faulty Trackpad Plaintiffs Lack Article III, Statutory Standing, Says HP’s Reply
The opposition from plaintiffs Justin Davis and Gary Davis to HP’s motion to dismiss their fraud class action (see 2307030008) fails to address “controlling” 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals precedent, or the guidance provided by the district court’s prior decisions, said HP’s reply brief Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-02114) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland in support of dismissal. The plaintiffs allege the defective trackpads in their HP Omen laptops rendered their computers unusable without an external mouse.
Rather than “squarely address” the past court decisions, the plaintiffs’ opposition presents arguments “premised on factual allegations and legal theories outside of the four corners” of their complaint, said HP’s reply. If the plaintiffs wished to avoid dismissal based on those arguments, they could have amended their complaint, “as was their right,” to include the new factual allegations and legal theories, it said.
That "path" would have conserved judicial and party resources, while giving the court and HP the opportunity to evaluate the plaintiffs’ arguments with the benefit of an amended complaint “that actually puts those arguments at issue,” said HP’s reply. The plaintiffs “at one time recognized as much,” as they originally stipulated on June 6 to amend their complaint, and to schedule briefing and hearing on HP’s anticipated motion to dismiss that amended complaint. Three days later, the plaintiffs “reversed course,” and more than two months later “still have not explained why,” it said.
As it now stands, the plaintiffs’ original complaint “must be dismissed, on each of the grounds identified” in HP’s June 30 motion, said HP’s reply brief. Though the plaintiff might be permitted at least one amendment, the court “should strictly limit that amendment in light of this history," it said. “In no circumstance” should the plaintiffs be “rewarded” for their attempt to “try out” legal positions for the first time in their opposition, before actually pleading facts that would give the plaintiffs standing “to invoke those positions,” it said.
The plaintiffs lack Article III and statutory standing, said HP’s reply brief. They fail to allege any facts that would plausibly connect their individual decisions to buy HP Omen laptops to any HP “statement or conduct,” it said. The “scant two paragraphs” of the complaint that describe the plaintiffs’ individual purchases “fail to identify any particular HP statement that they reviewed or relied upon,” it said.