Cepelak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA ROSE, Case No. 20-cv-02450-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

HP INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 40 Defendant.

HP’s motion to dismiss the fraud claims is denied because Rose has adequately alleged a duty to disclose, concealment of a material fact, and intent to defraud. The motion to dismiss the implied warranty claims is granted because Rose has not plausibly alleged that the printer is unfit for ordinary use. HP’s motion to dismiss Rose’s claim for injunctive relief is denied because she has adequately alleged standing to seek it at this stage. Fraud Claims: A defendant has exclusive knowledge giving rise to a duty to disclose when, according to the complaint, the defendant “knew of th[e] defect while plaintiffs did not, and, given the nature of the defect, it was difficult to discover.” Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 249, 256 (2011), as modified (Dec. 28, 2011). That is exactly what the complaint alleges. HP clearly knew about “underprinting” and the printer’s inability to print when color ink is depleted, while…