Pattison

Pattison v. HP Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 2, 20243:24-cv-02752California1,651 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARY PATTISON, Case No. 24-cv-02752-MMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

HP INC.,

Defendant.

12 Before the Court is defendant HP Inc.'s ("HP") Motion, filed August 16, 2024, "to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint," whereby said defendant seeks dismissal of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to strike class allegations pursuant to Rule 23(d). Plaintiff Mary Pattison ("Pattison") has filed opposition, to which HP has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 A. Rule 12(b)(1): Standing 1. Pattison has standing to seek relief based on her not receiving a rebate of the $184.99 she paid for an "HP Care Pack" (see FAC ¶¶ 15, 24), as "[a] plaintiff's standing 23…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.