Plaintiffs’ Own Evidence Dooms HP Wireless Printer Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal judge in California has tossed an HP wireless printer class action lawsuit, deciding that Hewlett-Packard had adequately serviced its one-year warranty for the product and that other claims were time-barred by statutes of limitations.

In the original HP class action lawsuit, lead plaintiff Vincent Ferranti alleges that he bought an OfficeJet Pro 8500 Wireless printer, only to find that “the wireless function failed during normal use” and leading to negative customer reviews and posts on the company’s support forum soon after launch in March 2009. A similar printer was released that fall and reportedly suffered from the same issue.

Ferranti exchanged his for another and alleges that he only received temporary fixes and a discount off a new model. This pattern of activity led him to file his class action lawsuit on claims of violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Other named plaintiffs also cited alleged violations of other states’ consumer protection laws.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila considered the allegations when making a decision on HP’s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit and noted the time of the customer complaints about both models of the company’s wireless printer. The problem is that the statute of limitations for the various consumer protection laws regarding defects only run three or four years. The plaintiffs had asked that they be tolled because of the delay in discovering the issue.

The judge denied that claim, arguing that Ferranti noticed the problem soon after purchase and was in frequent contact with customer service between April 2010 and May 2013, according to the HP class action lawsuit. Other plaintiffs faced similar problems. In the order granting the motion to dismiss, the breaches of express warranties claims were also a problem.

Judge Davila noted the “inconsistent” arguments including that the plaintiffs “allege that HP failed to replace or repair the defective printers” while later in the same class action lawsuit complaint they allege they were able to call customer support and obtain a replacement printer. He also wrote that while the plaintiffs say they were never provided a “non-defective printer,” they never allege that they actually made a request for a printer beyond the OfficeJet Pro 8500 Wireless printer or the 8600 variant.

The Class is represented by class action attorneys Michael A. Caddell, Cynthia B. Chapman and Cory S. Fein of Caddell & Chapman.

The HP Wireless Printer Class Action Lawsuit is Vincent Ferranti, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. 13-cv-03847, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.