1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARY PATTISON, Case No. 24-cv-02752-MMC
7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 8 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 9 HP INC., PLEADINGS 10 Defendant.
11 12 Before the Court is defendant HP Inc.'s ("HP") Motion, filed August 29, 2025, "for 13 Judgment on the Pleadings." Plaintiff Mary Pattison ("Pattison") has filed opposition, to 14 which HP has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in 15 opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 16 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, "[a]fter the 17 pleadings are closed―but early enough not to delay trial―a party may move for 18 judgment on the pleadings." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "Judgment on the pleadings is 19 proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no 20 material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter 21 of law." Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.1990). 22 The instant action proceeds on two Causes of Action asserted in Pattison's Third 23 Amended Complaint ("TAC"), namely, the First Cause of Action, titled "Fraud," and the 24 Second Cause of Action, titled "Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. 25 Code §§ 1750, et seq. ['CLRA']." 26 As the Court explained in an order addressing HP's challenges to the Second 27 1 Amended Complaint, which observations apply equally to the TAC, Pattison's claims are 2 premised on her allegations that "she and HP entered into a contract titled 'HP Care Pack 3 Support Terms (hereinafter, 'Terms')" and that "she did so in reliance on 'false' 4 statements on HP's website that a customer who does not use the services set forth in 5 the Terms is entitled to a full refund at the end of the three-year contractual period." (See 6 Order, filed December 5, 2024, at 1:17-21.) As before, Pattison also alleges that she did 7 not use the services during the contractual term, that she applied for a rebate on 8 December 19, 2023, a date after the conclusion of the contractual term, and that, when 9 she heard nothing for several months, she attempted without success to locate a 10 webpage or telephone number at which she could follow up on the status of the promised 11 rebate. (See TAC ¶¶ 17-24.)2 12 The instant motion for judgment on the pleadings raises two arguments, which the 13 Court addresses in turn. 14 A. Damages Claims Based on Time Spent/Opportunity Lost When Seeking Rebate 15 Pattison sets forth the damages she seeks as follows:
16 As a result of [HP's] false representations, failure to disclose material facts about its Care Pack program, failure to properly administer the Care Pack 17 program, and failure to timely provide rebates, Plaintiff and Class members have all sustained actual injuries and damages, including: (i) direct 18 damages equal to the cost of their computer equipment and their Care Pack, (ii) lost benefit of the bargain; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs 19 associated with attempting to register the Care Pack and obtain Care Pack rebates; (iv) damages from delayed refunds; and (v) nominal damages. 20 (See TAC ¶ 25.) 21 HP argues it is entitled to judgment to the extent Pattison's claims are based on 22 one particular theory of damages, which HP describes as "recover[ing] for encountering 23 an inoperative website or erroneous telephone number" (see Def.'s Mot. at 6:15-17), i.e., 24 compensation for "lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to . . . 25 26 2 Pattison filed her initial Complaint on May 8, 2024. In connection with an earlier- 27 filed motion, HP submitted evidence that, after Pattison filed her initial Complaint, HP 1 obtain Care Pack rebates" (see TAC ¶ 25). In particular, HP argues, such damages are 2 nominal in nature. 3 Nominal damages are not available under California law as a remedy for fraud or 4 for a violation of the CLRA. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 5 2d 1084, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding, "[b]ecause damages are essential to a claim for 6 fraud, 'nominal damages are not awarded in deceit'") (quoting Prosser and Keaton on 7 Torts § 110 (5th Ed. 1984)); Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., 2016 WL 1213767, at *45 (N.D. 8 Cal. March 29, 2016) (holding plaintiff seeking damages under CLRA must prove "actual 9 damages"; noting plaintiff therein "ha[d] not cited a single case demonstrating that 10 nominal damages are available under [the CLRA]"). 11 Here, HP, citing Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49 12 (2013), argues an award based on the time Pattison allegedly spent attempting to locate 13 a working website or telephone number in connection with seeking a rebate is typical of 14 the type of damages courts have characterized as "nominal." See, e.g., id. at 79 15 (holding, where plaintiff alleged mortgage loan servicer made false statement that it 16 would consider merits of plaintiff's application to modify mortgage, plaintiff not entitled to 17 damages predicated on value of time and effort spent to prepare application; finding 18 "[t]ime and effort spent assembling materials for an application to modify a loan is the sort 19 of nominal damage subject to the maxim de minimis non curat lex—i.e., the law does not 20 concern itself with trifles"); Badame v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 641 Fed. Appx. 21 707, 710 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding "[p]laintiffs' contention that they are entitled to damages 22 for the loss of time and energy they spent through the loan modification process . . . fails 23 [for the reasons stated in] Lueras," namely, "the law does not concern itself with trifles"). 24 In her opposition, Pattison's sole argument as to why the above-referenced 25 authorities are inapplicable to her claim for damages incurred as a result of "lost time and 26 opportunity costs" associated with her attempt to obtain a refund (see TAC ¶ 25) is that 27 she has alleged HP "misrepresent[ed] the services it is selling to customers (and hiding 1 12). The Court is not persuaded. The claims in the above-described cases were, like 2 here, fraud claims, and the holdings therein were not based on a failure to sufficiently 3 plead a false statement, but, rather, on a finding that the damages sought were nominal. 4 Accordingly, to the extent Pattison's claims are based on lost time and opportunity 5 costs associated with her attempt to obtain a refund, HP is entitled to judgment. 6 B. Claims on Behalf of Class Members Who Did Not Submit Claim Forms 7 The proposed class, as defined in the SAC is, "[a]ll individuals and entities residing 8 within the United States and its territories who have (a) purchased computer equipment 9 along with a Care Pack from HP Inc. that covered the computer equipment; and (b) not 10 experienced a service event involving the computer equipment for three years since the 11 purchase of the Care Pack." (See TAC ¶ 30.) 12 Relying on the principle that "a class representative must be part of the class and 13 possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members," see 14 General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARY PATTISON, Case No. 24-cv-02752-MMC
7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 8 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 9 HP INC., PLEADINGS 10 Defendant.
11 12 Before the Court is defendant HP Inc.'s ("HP") Motion, filed August 29, 2025, "for 13 Judgment on the Pleadings." Plaintiff Mary Pattison ("Pattison") has filed opposition, to 14 which HP has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in 15 opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 16 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, "[a]fter the 17 pleadings are closed―but early enough not to delay trial―a party may move for 18 judgment on the pleadings." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "Judgment on the pleadings is 19 proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no 20 material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter 21 of law." Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.1990). 22 The instant action proceeds on two Causes of Action asserted in Pattison's Third 23 Amended Complaint ("TAC"), namely, the First Cause of Action, titled "Fraud," and the 24 Second Cause of Action, titled "Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. 25 Code §§ 1750, et seq. ['CLRA']." 26 As the Court explained in an order addressing HP's challenges to the Second 27 1 Amended Complaint, which observations apply equally to the TAC, Pattison's claims are 2 premised on her allegations that "she and HP entered into a contract titled 'HP Care Pack 3 Support Terms (hereinafter, 'Terms')" and that "she did so in reliance on 'false' 4 statements on HP's website that a customer who does not use the services set forth in 5 the Terms is entitled to a full refund at the end of the three-year contractual period." (See 6 Order, filed December 5, 2024, at 1:17-21.) As before, Pattison also alleges that she did 7 not use the services during the contractual term, that she applied for a rebate on 8 December 19, 2023, a date after the conclusion of the contractual term, and that, when 9 she heard nothing for several months, she attempted without success to locate a 10 webpage or telephone number at which she could follow up on the status of the promised 11 rebate. (See TAC ¶¶ 17-24.)2 12 The instant motion for judgment on the pleadings raises two arguments, which the 13 Court addresses in turn. 14 A. Damages Claims Based on Time Spent/Opportunity Lost When Seeking Rebate 15 Pattison sets forth the damages she seeks as follows:
16 As a result of [HP's] false representations, failure to disclose material facts about its Care Pack program, failure to properly administer the Care Pack 17 program, and failure to timely provide rebates, Plaintiff and Class members have all sustained actual injuries and damages, including: (i) direct 18 damages equal to the cost of their computer equipment and their Care Pack, (ii) lost benefit of the bargain; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs 19 associated with attempting to register the Care Pack and obtain Care Pack rebates; (iv) damages from delayed refunds; and (v) nominal damages. 20 (See TAC ¶ 25.) 21 HP argues it is entitled to judgment to the extent Pattison's claims are based on 22 one particular theory of damages, which HP describes as "recover[ing] for encountering 23 an inoperative website or erroneous telephone number" (see Def.'s Mot. at 6:15-17), i.e., 24 compensation for "lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to . . . 25 26 2 Pattison filed her initial Complaint on May 8, 2024. In connection with an earlier- 27 filed motion, HP submitted evidence that, after Pattison filed her initial Complaint, HP 1 obtain Care Pack rebates" (see TAC ¶ 25). In particular, HP argues, such damages are 2 nominal in nature. 3 Nominal damages are not available under California law as a remedy for fraud or 4 for a violation of the CLRA. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 5 2d 1084, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding, "[b]ecause damages are essential to a claim for 6 fraud, 'nominal damages are not awarded in deceit'") (quoting Prosser and Keaton on 7 Torts § 110 (5th Ed. 1984)); Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., 2016 WL 1213767, at *45 (N.D. 8 Cal. March 29, 2016) (holding plaintiff seeking damages under CLRA must prove "actual 9 damages"; noting plaintiff therein "ha[d] not cited a single case demonstrating that 10 nominal damages are available under [the CLRA]"). 11 Here, HP, citing Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49 12 (2013), argues an award based on the time Pattison allegedly spent attempting to locate 13 a working website or telephone number in connection with seeking a rebate is typical of 14 the type of damages courts have characterized as "nominal." See, e.g., id. at 79 15 (holding, where plaintiff alleged mortgage loan servicer made false statement that it 16 would consider merits of plaintiff's application to modify mortgage, plaintiff not entitled to 17 damages predicated on value of time and effort spent to prepare application; finding 18 "[t]ime and effort spent assembling materials for an application to modify a loan is the sort 19 of nominal damage subject to the maxim de minimis non curat lex—i.e., the law does not 20 concern itself with trifles"); Badame v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 641 Fed. Appx. 21 707, 710 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding "[p]laintiffs' contention that they are entitled to damages 22 for the loss of time and energy they spent through the loan modification process . . . fails 23 [for the reasons stated in] Lueras," namely, "the law does not concern itself with trifles"). 24 In her opposition, Pattison's sole argument as to why the above-referenced 25 authorities are inapplicable to her claim for damages incurred as a result of "lost time and 26 opportunity costs" associated with her attempt to obtain a refund (see TAC ¶ 25) is that 27 she has alleged HP "misrepresent[ed] the services it is selling to customers (and hiding 1 12). The Court is not persuaded. The claims in the above-described cases were, like 2 here, fraud claims, and the holdings therein were not based on a failure to sufficiently 3 plead a false statement, but, rather, on a finding that the damages sought were nominal. 4 Accordingly, to the extent Pattison's claims are based on lost time and opportunity 5 costs associated with her attempt to obtain a refund, HP is entitled to judgment. 6 B. Claims on Behalf of Class Members Who Did Not Submit Claim Forms 7 The proposed class, as defined in the SAC is, "[a]ll individuals and entities residing 8 within the United States and its territories who have (a) purchased computer equipment 9 along with a Care Pack from HP Inc. that covered the computer equipment; and (b) not 10 experienced a service event involving the computer equipment for three years since the 11 purchase of the Care Pack." (See TAC ¶ 30.) 12 Relying on the principle that "a class representative must be part of the class and 13 possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members," see 14 General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156 (1982) (internal quotation and 15 citation omitted), HP argues Pattison "lacks standing to represent putative class members 16 who never submitted a rebate to HP" in that "[s]uch persons have no claim for [a] delayed 17 rebate check" (see Def.'s Mot. at 9:3-6), and, consequently, that her claims on behalf of 18 class members who have not applied for a rebate are subject to dismissal.3 19 The putative class here, however, is not defined as persons who submitted 20 requests for rebates, but, rather, persons who purchased a computer and Care 21 Pack―impliedly, like Pattison, in reliance on HP's representations regarding a potential 22 rebate―and, as set forth above, Pattison asserts she and the class members "sustained" 23 several types of damages, including "the cost of their computer equipment and their Care 24 Pack[s]." (See TAC ¶ 25.) Thus, under Pattison's theory of the case, persons who did 25 3 Although Pattison argues such issues should be addressed "during the class 26 certification phase" (see Pl.'s Opp. at 4:6-7), the Supreme Court has explained that "[s]ometimes the issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the 27 interests of the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff's claim," 1 not apply for a refund would share with her such asserted loss. See Jimenez v. Allstate 2 Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that "[s]o long as the plaintiffs 3 || [are] harmed by the same conduct, disparities in how or by how much they [are] harmed 4 || [does] not defeat class certification"; noting "it would drive a stake through the heart of 5 || the class action device to require that every member of the class have identical 6 || damages") (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted).* 7 Consequently, looking solely to the record currently presented, the Court finds the 8 || interests of persons who did not actually apply for a rebate are "fairly encompassed 9 || within the named plaintiff's claim[s].". See General Telephone, 457 U.S. at 160. 10 Accordingly, the Court finds HP has failed to show the claims Pattison seeks to 11 bring on behalf of putative class members who have not applied for a rebate are subject 12 to dismissal.
13 CONCLUSION
O 14 For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is hereby Oo 8 15 || GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
Q 16 1. To the extent Pattison's claims are based on damages resulting from the time Cc @ 17 || and opportunity allegedly lost when she attempted to obtain a rebate, the motion is 18 || GRANTED and HP is entitled to judgment. 19 2. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: November 6, 2025 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 23 United States District Judge
25 * In its reply, HP, for the first time, makes the argument that putative class members who did not request a rebate "neither paid more or received less as the result 26 || Of HP's alleged omissions or representations." (See Def.'s Reply at 7:4-7 (internal quotation and citation omitted).) The Court does not at this time consider said argument. 27 See Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004) (declining to consider argument raised for first time in reply; noting opposing 2g || Party lacked opportunity to respond).