Case Name: ?? Rutledge, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
Case No.: ?????? 2003-1-CV-817837
- Introduction
This case was filed in 2003.? It is a class action lawsuit involving allegedly defective parts in notebook computers sold by Defendant.? After extensive proceedings that resulted in judgment being entered in favor of Defendant, Plaintiffs appealed.? The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed this Court?s order in 2007 that a California class could be certified, but not a nationwide class.? The appellate ruling also addressed other orders made by this Court, affirming in part and reversing in part.
On April 5, 2016, the Court certified a nationwide class.? On July 28, 2016, pursuant to the parties? stipulation, the definition of the nationwide class was amended.? Following a hearing on December 23, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs? motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (?TAC?) so Plaintiffs could conform the TAC to the appellate ruling and better reflect the current state of evidence and related claims developed over the course of this litigation.? The TAC sets forth three causes of action:? (1)?Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law; and (3) Breach of Express Warranty.
Defendant now demurs to the second and third causes of action, contending they are time-barred with respect to the claims made on behalf of nationwide class members.
- Requests for Judicial Notice
Defendant requests judicial notice of a number of documents filed in this case, along with a reporter?s transcript.? The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.? (Evid. Code, ??452, subd.?(d).)
In connection with the reply papers, Defendant makes a supplemental request for judicial notice of the following documents:
- Order Regarding Plaintiffs? Motion for Class Certification, filed in this action on January 31, 2007; and
- Order Re: Motion to Certify CLRA Claims; Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Asserted in HP?s Answer to Plaintiffs? Second Amended Complaint; Motion to Compel Responses and Overrule Objections to Plaintiffs? Amended 5th Set of Interrogatories; Motion for Protective Order and for Relief from Waiver, filed in this action on May 24,?2010.
The supplemental request for judicial notice is GRANTED.? (Evid. Code, ??452, subd.?(d).)
- Defendant?s Demurrer
Plaintiffs allege they purchased notebook computers that are the subject of this action around 2002.? (See TAC, ???17, 56, 85.)? The second and third causes of action are each subject to a four-year statute of limitations.? (Bus. & Prof. Code, ??17208; Cal. U. Com. Code, ??2725.)? After the trial court denied a motion seeking to certify a nationwide class in 2007, Plaintiffs prepared a First Amended Complaint that omitted the nationwide class allegations.? Defendant argues that in so doing, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the nationwide class claims, and consequently the statute of limitations was no longer tolled and the four year statute subsequently passed.? Based on this, Defendant argues the second and third causes of action are time-barred with regard to the nationwide class (excluding members of the California class).
In anticipation of arguments that could be raised by Plaintiffs, Defendant?s opening papers contend:? (1) the relation back doctrine does not apply; (2) there has been no waiver of the limitations defense as to the claims of the nationwide class; and (3) there has been no tolling under the case of American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538.[1]
In their opposition papers, Plaintiffs argue:? (1) the law of the case doctrine precludes Defendant?s statute of limitations defense; (2) the claims of the nationwide class have been pending since 2003; (3)?Defendant?s demurrer is an invalid attempt to demur to a portion of each of two claims; (4)?Defendant?s relation back arguments are inapposite and case law would support relation back if it applied; and (5) Defendant?s tolling argument is inapposite and case law would support tolling if it applied.
The Court finds Defendant?s demurrer to be without merit.? Once the Court denied certification of the nationwide class, there was no reason to leave a nationwide class definition in the First Amended Complaint because the nationwide class claims were no longer part of the case.? In fact, the Court?s order denying certification of a nationwide class ordered the parties to ?meet and confer regarding further class definition.?.?.?.?? (Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of HP Inc.?s Demurrer to Plaintiffs? Third Amended Complaint, Ex. A, p.5:16.)? It is clear that Plaintiffs? amendment of the class definition approximately five weeks after the Court?s order denying certification was a direct response to that order and was made to bring the pleadings in conformity with the status of the claims remaining.? The amendment filed by Plaintiffs stated that the amendment was ?[p]ursuant to the stipulation of the parties and the Court?s January 31, 2007 Order.?? (Request for Judicial Notice in Support of HP Inc.?s Demurrer to Plaintiffs? Third Amended Complaint, Ex. N.)
Further, the appellate court in this case ruled unequivocally that this Court?s order denying nationwide class certification must be reversed.? (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Company (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1189.)? In other words, the nationwide class should have been certified at the time of the original class certification order in 2007.? There is no dispute that the claims of the nationwide class were not time-barred at that time.
It would be both an absurd result and inequitable to find that because Plaintiffs amended the class definition in direct response to the Court?s order, which has now been ruled erroneous, Plaintiffs are barred from proceeding with claims that should have been allowed to proceed in 2007.? Accordingly, Defendant?s demurrer is OVERRULED.
The Court will prepare the order.
[1] In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held that ?the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.?? (American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, 414 U.S. at p. 554.)