Kowalsky

Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

Bad Law
771 F. Supp. 2d 1156·2011 WL 1466136·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41337
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 15, 2011Case No.: 10-CV-02176-LHKCalifornia3,648 words

Opinion

Opinion

Koh, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“HP”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part HP’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In particular, HP moves for reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s order denying its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) claims. The Court heard oral argument on April 14, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS HP’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the portion of its earlier order denying the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs UCL and CLRA claims, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Order.

I. Background

In its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, dated December 13, 2010, the Court provided a detailed factual background to this action and provided legal analysis of each of Plaintiffs claims. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, 771 F.Supp.2d 1138 , 2010 WL…

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.