Legal Opinion
Cepelak v. HP Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided December 29, 2020No. 3:20-cv-02450Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTINA ROSE, Case No. 20-cv-02450-VC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS HP INC., Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendant. HP’s motion to dismiss the fraud claims is denied because Rose has adequately alleged a duty to disclose, concealment of a material fact, and intent to defraud. The motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims is granted because Rose has not plausibly alleged that the printer is unfit for ordinary use. HP’s motion to dismiss Rose’s claim for injunctive relief is denied because she…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Mirkin v. WassermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Birdsong v. Apple, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Falk v. General Motors Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2007
- American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.