From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Long v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Jul 27, 2007
NO. C 06-02816 JW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007)

Summary

finding that "[t]he word "notebook" describes the type of product being sold" and "[g]eneralized, vague, and unspecified assertions constitute `mere puffery' on which a reasonable consumer could not rely"

Summary of this case from Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Opinion

NO. C 06-02816 JW.

July 27, 2007


JUDGMENT


Pursuant to the Court's July 27, 2007 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; Granting HP's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint With Prejudice; Denying as Moot HP's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Definition, judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co., against Plaintiffs Lewis Long and Therry Simien.

Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.

The Clerk shall close this file.


Summaries of

Long v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Jul 27, 2007
NO. C 06-02816 JW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007)

finding that "[t]he word "notebook" describes the type of product being sold" and "[g]eneralized, vague, and unspecified assertions constitute `mere puffery' on which a reasonable consumer could not rely"

Summary of this case from Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

stating that “[t]he word ‘notebook’ describes the type of product being sold; it does not constitute a representation regarding the quality of the computer's parts, nor a representation regarding the consistency or longevity of the computer's operation”

Summary of this case from In re Myford Touch Consumer Litigation

noting that dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate when there is no possibility that the plaintiff could state an actionable violation of the statute at issue

Summary of this case from Higdon v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company
Case details for

Long v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Case Details

Full title:Lewis Long, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Jul 27, 2007

Citations

NO. C 06-02816 JW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rasmussen v. Apple, Inc.

Numerous district court decisions are in accord. See, e.g.,Hodges v. Apple Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 2013 WL…

Frenzel v. AliphCom

This position is wrong as a matter of law. SeeIn re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13–cv–03072–EMC, 46…