HP Pavilion DV6000 Laptop Wireless Failure – HP Says 1 in 7 Affected

EDITED by admin: no reason to copy and paste an entire web page.

Here’s the info:
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c01087277

This shit is OUTRAGEOUS…. My wireless switch worked a little bit a few weeks ago. I just had to flip it back and forth really hard and it turned blue a couple times. But now, absolutely nothing. The motherboard thing. Does anybody have an HP phone number of someone who actually speaks English so i won’t feel bad about cursing and can maybe get me a free or cheap repair or my god damn money back?

I am having same problem, laptop not included in enhanced warranty program, but still need solution….

Anybody had any luck with HP?

Similar Thing happened to me. Another VERY COMMON HP MoBo Issue.
Listen…
I’ve bought the HP Pavilion DV6146eu notebook at the end of 2006. After 1 year, exactly on jan 2008, my laptop become unusable due to this terrible issue that affected my pc: BLACK SCREEN OF DEATH :( at boot 3 beeps 1 long 2 shorts (and not only mine as i can see around the web). HP solved the issue substituting the motherboard. i’ve used it for another 1 year and last week i had exactly the same issue: 3 beeps (1 long 2 shorts) no video!! I’ve contacted HP Customer Care and they said me that that i was not eligible for a free replacemnet as i was in the past year!! They said that they are not responsable about this issue concerning that my P/N is not on the ELIGIBLE LIST. How could be possible with a P/N that THEY gave me in substitation of the defected one that i had? It is unacceptable that HP don’t take care about a problem that they do selling this DEFECTED BOARDS on different models around the world!!
I’m feeling frustrated and i think that it is not the right way to support people who bought HP products and had problems due to known engeneering malfunctions!!!
Regards and ENJOY with HP Products ;) (f##k)
—
This message was also published in the HP Official Forum in 1st instance but i had no support in it as you can see following the link: http://forums13.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/bizsupport/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1239239559018+28353475&threadId=1323134

Just had to replace the motherboard on my dv6058 because the video went out, now the wlan is acting up. Lucky for me I got the extended warranty for twelve bucks. Was cheap insurance.

Both my wife and myself had a HP ‘pavilion’ laptops, bought in 2007. Both comps are dead right now (permanent sleep mode). She bought new Toshiba last month, I’m close to purchase one. From now on, HP doesn’t exist for me anymore.

I’ve gotta say, I’m a convert. My wife has had success with HP in the past, but my dv6000 is a terrible piece of work. I’ve got to imagine that eventually making faulty computers will catch up with HP. Toward that end, here are a few terms for the search engines to capture:
Hewlett-Packard, Hewlett Packard, poor quality, worthless, bad wireless card, wireless problems. fraught with problems, not worth it, headache, not as good as Apple, poor service, unusable, unreliable, dishonest, buy apple instead.

is it going to be worth it to change a wireless radio network card, will the wireless go back out again a short time later, or is it just buying time?

I have the same wireless connection problem. My laptop is almost 2 years old (purchased 7-07) and I haven’t had any problems until yesterday. The computer was working fine and then when I tried to go online I did not have a wireless connection. My husband spent 2 days trying to fix the problem, updated drivers, updates BIOS (as recommended) but nothing worked. He did go to Wal-mart and buy me a Linxsys USB adapter so I could use my computer. After reading the posts I decided to call HP and inform them of the problem. I did state that I was informed that the motherboard was defective and recalled for this reason. After taking the S/N and P/N and running a few quick tests the representative stated that he would be sending me a postage paid box to send my laptop in for repair free of charge. He also informed me to back up all files and programs because the computer will be completely wiped clean when I receive it back.
Although the USB adapter is working I was just not happy that I had to add something to my computer just to go online wirelessly when the problem is clearly an HP problem.
If you are having this problem and decide to call HP try to keep your patience and be nice…It worked for me! Good luck.
HP #1-866-671-7362 they are there 7 days a week untill 11:00 MST

DV6000 is a fancy and nice computer, that I admit , but the way it gives problems. Mine gives one long beep and two short once when starting up and the monitor does not display but the machine comes on. I thought maybe the VGA was dead and was ready to buy new motherboard. To my surprise after two months it stared displaying again but on and of. It is out of warranty already but since HP has admitted this computers have problenms it should be in a position to help us.

Same problem as many of you – wireless adaptor is completely gone. I’m gonna ring HP tomorrow – they should repair the issue for free, and if they don’t I shall be getting rather shitty.

Word of advice to anyone planning the same thing:
REMOVE YOUR HARD DRIVE if you want to keep your documents.

I sent it back within the warranty for that bloody screen issue and they felt the need to wipe all my documents :@

Underneath where the wireless switch is – that’s where your hard drive is. Undo those two screws and remove the cover. Hard drive just pops out :)

Don’t understand why they bother shipping these laptops for selling if they KNOW they don’t work, they’ll just get bad PR and hassle with this crap.

Wish me luck…lol.

hi!, I have a hp pavillion dv6000 and
I’m facing a similar dilemma with the wireless (that’s it at the moment)
and I’ve been reading all this post
so, as I see this thing is gonna getting worse
I want to sell my laptop and maybe buy another laptop or a desktop computer
so here’s the big question…
what should I do?? which laptop or deskop computer do you recommend?
coz hp no thanks haha

My wireless adaptor stopped to work two days ago. Nice, i got an update from HP Total Care Advisor until this monday, saying it was a problem with some laptop models (including mine), and they would fix it….

I called to HP and they told me my extended warranty was expired, and i had 24 months to ask for the reparation… (yes, of a problem i didn´t know that existed)

I´m in El Salvador right now, my warranty period is expired, this is not something that i´ve caused this is an issue that HP has recognized in my laptop model (Pavilion dv6215us). I´ve been calling to HP and they don´t give me a solution…

What can I do?

I bought a hp dv6000 last august. I have had nothing but trouble with it! keyboard falling apart,miss typed words,wrong letter,no letter,freezes up,wireless is nuts and on and on and on! sent it in for repair…got it back with no information as what was done? so I called my (case manager) he said it was repaired they put in a new wireless card! still does all the above mentioned and I am fed up! my warrenty runs out in less than two weeks..isn’t that nice! I will never ever buy another HP product as long as I live…I don’t care if they are a dime apiece! their products are junk,their service is a joke and their support is a farce! I have a three year old dell that out performs this piece of crap 10 to 1 and trying to resolve an issue with HP is like putting a square part in a round hole! they just don’t give a damn about the customer. take it from me…buy something else! anything else! just don’t waste your time or money on HP!!!
Looks like I will end up eating this thing…but I will make it my mission to tell everyone I meet what kind of service and products HP is selling. That much I promise!!!

Same thing here!, I just receive today my HP dv6000 from repair for a SECOND time about the same wireless issue!!!, It has bee a pain dealing with hp customer service to get it repair. I bought the laptop in July 2007, it failed in July 2008 and July 2009 failed again, so I think this laptop just will last for another year. The first time they replaced the motherboard now this time they repaired the Thermal Pad, no further explanations. Now I have a 90 days warranty for this…… We should sue HP because their lies!

I purchased my HP DV6000 in 2007 and although I don’t use it a lot I felt it was a good laptop, until now. Out of the clear blue my wireless connection has stopped working. Could be the switch, the motherboard or who knows. All I can say is at $!,000.00 + Tx for just over 2 years use makes for on damn expensive computer. Seems HP should have recalled these models or at least extended the warrany to cover this particular fault.
Since customer good will is not high on their priority I’m open to joining in on a class action law suit.

To add to what i just wrote.. I have never had wireless problems. Been using neighbors internet for 2 years now :). Made a crossover cable to connect to my desktop which has worked awesome the whole time. Basically the laptop has been a router/modem so to speak this whole time. Now hopefully ill be able to take laptop places when i get it back :D.

Well, I now dont feel so alone. My dv6000 series lost sound a month ago. Then, sometimes I would get sound…but, no video. Finally, this week…my wireless went out along with the LAN. No big deal…Im just going to go out and buy a new non-HP laptop tomorrow. Hope HP crashes and burns. I for one will never buy another one of their products and will tell many others the same.

So, I have a DV6449us which was purchased in July of 2007. In early 2008, my wireless switch stopped working, so I had to send it in for repairs. When I got it back, it still didn’t work, so I had to send it in again. Later on last year, my laptop would not turn on. It kept cycling, so I returned it again. Got it back. Now my warranty just expired last month. Right after it expired, my wireless switch stopped working again.

I just called HP and they will fix it for free. But do you think they’re just gonna put the same part in, and it’s gonna mess up again? I know it’s getting fixed, but I’m afraid that it’s gonna crash again this year. And since I pre-ordered Windows 7, I hope I don’t end up just wasting it by putting it on this laptop, instead of putting it on another computer.

My dv6000 will not work and the recall period ended recently. This is absolutely ridiculous. I will never buy HP again. BOYCOTT HP they are terrible and their customer service reps in INDIA are terrible

My experience with HP was the same. Bought my dv6308 just over two years ago. I recieved the email from HP regarding possible problems with my model and downloaded the useless BIOS update. Weeks later the wireless went out. It was within the first year warranty period, so the motherboard was replaced at no cost to me. A couple months ago I lost sound. It was after installing an update, so I uninstalled the update and my sound came back. A few weeks ago I started having battery issues. Since the laptop was two years old, I wasn’t too suprised about having to buy a new battery. Then yesterday, I go to turn on the computer and the blue lights come on for about ten seconds, turn off, and turn back on again. Motherboard is fried again! HP wants $400 for the repairs. Went to Best Buy today and purchased a Toshiba Satellite E105. Spent twice as much as it would cost to “repair” my HP, but replacing the motherboard once a year…. i don’t think so. One of the Geek Squad employees said the motherboard issues are caused by the NVIDIA chip. Has anyone else heard this? I’m upset I purchased a lemon, but more aggravating is HP’s total lack of customer service. Hopefully my new laptop will outlive the last one… two friggin years! What a piece of junk.

Suggestion only…you may want to consider purchasing the HP Pavilion dv6000 model or model type. Long lasting, durable, reliable.

I have heard too many stories now about the HP problems!!!! I also am having the same problems with the motherboard. The warranty expires 6 days ago, and now NO WIRELESS INTERNET CONNECTION” completely wiped out!!!! I think we all should get together on this thing and call “better business bureau” and see if we can get some thing done about this…there are just too many problems going around with HP….

Wow HP really lost credibility with this product. I had no idea so many were in the same boat. I have an older dv6000. It’s (supposedly) had it’s mobo replaced 2x at HPs expense. Over time i lost 1st the sound, 2nd the monitor and now the wireless. It really is pathetic considering we are talking about a basic PC. All of those problems happened AFTER HP replaced the board!

WTF?

James E. Cecchi Richard J. Burke
Lindsey H. Taylor RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, 1010 Market Street, Suite 650
CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN St. Louis, Missouri 63101
5 Becker Farm Rd. (314) 621-8647
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 994-1700
Paul M. Weiss
George K. Lang
FREED & WEISS LLC
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 220-0000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TRACY LEBLANC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLET-PACKARD CO., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
Civil Action No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Tracy LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by way
of Complaint against defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HP” or “Defendant”), says:
OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION
1. This is a proposed class action brought by Plaintiff individually on behalf of a
proposed Class of consumers of HP notebook computers (“HP notebooks” or “notebooks”) with
defective chip sets, as defined more fully herein.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 1 of 17
-2-
2. Nvidia Corp. (“Nvidia”) chip sets used by HP in its notebooks fail at an unusually
high rate. Nvidia has stated that its graphic processing units (“GPUs”) and media and
communication processors (“MCPs”) contain a weak die/packaging material. As the GPUs and
MCPs fail the HP notebooks display black screens, duplicate images, wireless networking
complications, and the random appearance of lines, characters and other on screen interference,
and total failure.
3. HP knew of the problems with Nvidia GPU’s and MCP’s and remained silent
while consumers purchased HP notebooks and while HP notebooks where serviced for warranty
and out of warranty claims.
4. HP’s acts and omissions constitute: (1) statutory fraud; (2) breach of implied
warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) declaratory judgment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). This is a class action involving
more than 100 class members. At least one member of the Class is a citizen of a State different
from defendant, and the amount in controversy, in the aggregate, exceeds the sum of
$5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.
6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendant conducts substantial business
in this District, transacts business in New Jersey and committed illegal acts in, maintains agents
or representatives in, and is otherwise found in this District. Defendant regularly and
continuously conducts business in interstate commerce that is carried out in part in this District.
PARTIES
7. Tracy LeBlanc. Plaintiff Tracy LeBlanc is a citizen of New Jersey residing in
Wharton, New Jersey, who purchased an HP notebook that included Nvidia chips. Plaintiff
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 2 of 17
-3-
made at least three warranty claims for problems stemming from the defective chips before the
end of warranty, and all three were denied.
8. Hewlett-Packard Co. Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California.
OVERVIEW
9. Nvidia is the world leader in visual computing technologies and the inventor of
the Graphics Processing Unit (“GPU”) a high Performance processor which generates
interactive graphics on personal computers. Nvidia also makes graphics processors, wireless
communications processors, PC motherboard chipsets, and media and communications
processors (“MCPs”).
10. On July 2, 2008, Nvidia announced that flawed processes and materials used in
manufacturing GPU’s and MCP’s was causing these mobile video adapters to fail at unusually
high rates. While Nvidia claims that it has not been able to determine a root cause for these
failures, Nvidia admits that testing suggests a weak material set of die/package combination,
system thermal management designs, and customer use patterns are contributing factors. Prior to
the total failure of the graphics cards, affected computers often suffer from a variety of
symptoms, including black screens, duplicate images, wireless networking complications, and
the random appearance of lines, characters, and other on-screen interference.
11. According to a Nvidia SEC filing:
Nvidia plans to take a one-time charge from $150 million to $200
million against cost of revenue for the second quarter to cover
anticipated warranty, repair, return, replacement and other costs
and expenses, arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of its previous generation GPU and MCP products
used in notebook systems. Certain notebook configurations with
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 3 of 17
-4-
GPUs and MCPs manufactured with a certain die/packaging
material set are failing in the field at higher than normal rates.
12. Nvidia’s Vice President for Investor Relations and Communications, conceded
during the September 4, 2008, “Citigroup Technology Conference” that Nvidia began
troubleshooting these problems with major computer manufacturers, including HP, beginning no
later than August of 2007.
13. Nvidia’s investment relations officer specifically acknowledged that the defects,
even if corrected, cause degradation in battery life. He suggested that, among others, purchasers
of HP notebooks with defective Nvidia chip sets should be satisfied with a second-rate computer.
14. The chip problem stems from what is been termed “heat cycling”. When HP
computers equipped with Nvidia’s graphics cards are switched on, the cards quickly reach high
temperatures. As the cards cool down, however, the rapid change in temperature subjects the
chips to extreme physical stress. As a result, solder joints weaken and ultimately crack, causing
the video adapters to malfunction or stop working altogether.
HP’S CONDUCT
15. Though faced with hundreds of consumer complaints regarding these problems,
HP failed to warn consumers about the common design and manufacturing defects contained in
its affected notebook computers. Instead, HP remained silent while consumers purchased its
defective products and made warranty claims, knowing that they would malfunction and result
in, among other things, Plaintiff’s and the Class’ inability to use their notebook computers for
their intended purposes and functions.
16. In response to these defects, HP released hardware BIOS updates that activate the
system cooling fan sooner and for a longer period of time, with the aim of keeping the adapter
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 4 of 17
-5-
from growing too hot. This is only a temporary solution, however, and it is accompanied by a
host of negative side effects that HP purposefully failed to disclose, including dramatically
reduced battery life and simultaneous increase in the level of noise produced by the fan.
17. Additionally, technology commentators have suggested that HP’s quick fix may
lead to the premature failure of the cooling fan. It has also been predicted that these BIOS
updates will merely postpone failure of NVIDIA video cards, including those installed in
notebook computers manufactured by HP, until after their warranties expire.
18. According to multiple public sources, the earliest of the BIOS updates was issued
by Hewlett-Packard no later than November 2007. Not until July 2008, however, did HP admit
that certain of its notebook computers contained defective chip sets and publish a list of the
defective notebook computers. Included were notebooks in HP’s Pavilion and Compaq Presario
computer lines.
19. On its website, HP listed some of the symptoms resulting from the defective
chips:
a. “The notebook does not detect wireless networks and the wireless adapter is not
detected in the Device Manager.”
b. “There is no video on the computer LCD panel or external monitor.”
c. “The notebook has no power and no active LEDs.”
d. “The notebook does not start.”
e. “The battery charge indicator light does not turn on when the battery is installed
and the AC adapter is connected.”
f. “The notebook issues a single beep during boot indicating no power.”
g. “The external monitor functions but there is no image on the notebook LCD
panel.”
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 5 of 17
-6-
20. HP has been flooded with complaints from purchasers of its notebook computers,
and overall consumer response to the defective Nvidia video cards has been overwhelmingly
negative.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
A. Definition of the Class
21. Plaintiff brings all claims herein as class claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) are met with respect to the class
defined below, of which Plaintiff is a member:
All persons who purchased a Hewlett-Packard Co. notebook or
notebook computer/s equipped with chip sets or video graphics
cards manufactured by NVIDIA Corp.
22. The class is objectively identified through examination of Defendant’s business
records, though the proposed class and/or classes may be modified pending discovery. Excluded
from the Class are: Defendant, any entities in which it has a controlling interest, any parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of such persons immediate
families, and the presiding judge(s) in this case and his, her or their immediate family.
B. Numerosity
23. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Class. Nonetheless, due
to the thousands of retail purchasers, Plaintiff reasonably believes that the Class members are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The number and identities of Class
members is administratively feasible and can be determined through appropriate discovery.
C. Commonality
24. There are questions of law or fact common to the class, including at least the
following:
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 6 of 17
-7-
(a) Whether HP notebook computers were equipped with defective
Nvidia chip sets;
(b) Whether HP concealed the existence of such defects;
(c) Whether HP was unjustly enriched by the conduct alleged herein;
(d) Whether Defendant had actual knowledge of its practice but failed
to disclose it to Plaintiff or the Class;
(e) Whether Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class;
(f) Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes consumer fraud; and
(g) Whether Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been
damaged, and if so, what is the proper measure of such damages?
D. Typicality
25. Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all other members of the Class,
and his claims are typical of all members of the class.
E. Adequacy
26. Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained competent counsel
experienced in the prosecution and successful resolution of consumer class actions. Plaintiff will
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class members and does not have interests
adverse to the Class.
F. The Prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(2) are Satisfied
27. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive and equitable relief
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) exist as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final injunctive and equitable relief
with respect to the Class as a whole.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 7 of 17
-8-
28. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the class would create a risk of
establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For example, one court might
decide that the challenged actions are illegal and enjoin them, while another court might decide
that those same actions are not illegal. Individual actions may, as a practical matter, be
dispositive of the interest of Class members, who would not be parties to those actions.
29. Defendant’s actions are generally applicable to the Class as a whole, and Plaintiff
seek, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the class as a whole.
30. Defendant’s systemic policy and practices make declaratory relief with respect to
the class as a whole appropriate.
G. The Prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) are Satisfied
31. This case satisfies the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The common
questions of law and fact enumerated above predominate over questions affecting only individual
members of the Class, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy. The likelihood that individual members of the Class will prosecute separate
actions is remote due to the extensive time and considerable expense necessary to conduct such
litigation, especially when compared to the relatively modest amount of monetary, injunctive and
equitable relief at issue for each individual Class member. This action will be prosecuted in a
fashion to ensure the Court’s able management of this case as a class action on behalf of the class
defined above.
COUNT I
(Violation of Substantially Similar Consumer Protection Acts)
32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the prior paragraphs as if fully
stated herein.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 8 of 17
-9-
33. Class is defined, pending discovery, to include individuals and entities from New
Jersey, where Plaintiff resides, and from additional states that have enacted substantially similar
consumer protection laws,1 which were enacted and designed to protect consumers against
unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 et seq.
34. Plaintiff and other Class members, as purchasers of HP notebooks, are consumers
within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Acts given that Defendant’s business activities
involve trade or commerce, are addressed to the market generally and otherwise implicate
consumer protection concerns.
35. Defendant’s conduct impacts the public interest.
36. The notebooks sold by Defendant are merchandise within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection Acts, and Plaintiff (and Class members) are consumers within the meaning
of the Acts and thus entitled to the statutory remedies made available in them.
37. Consumers (such as Plaintiff) were entitled to disclosure of all material facts
because HP notebooks contained defective chips, which would be a material fact in a consumer’s
decision-making process. Further, without HP’s disclosure, consumers would not know that the
chips were defective.
38. Once the risk of manufacturing notebooks with defective chips became
significant, consumers (such as Plaintiff) were entitled to disclosure of that fact because a
1 Consumer fraud claims of non-New Jersey Class members are brought under the
consumer protection statute(s) of their respective states, though the court may find application of
California law to the entire class appropriate. See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., §
17500 et seq. (California); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201 et seq. (Florida); 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq.
(Illinois); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 19.418(1) et seq. (Michigan); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010 et seq.
(Missouri); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. § 349 et seq. (New York); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 et seq. (North
Carolina); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01 et seq. (Ohio); Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010 et seq.
(Washington).
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 9 of 17
-10-
significant risk of defective chips would be a material fact in a consumer’s decision-making
process, and/or without HP’s disclosure, consumers would not know that there is any risk of
defective chips.
39. Moreover, because chips included in a notebook are not detailed on the
packaging, consumers had no way to know that defective chips would be included in the
purchase. All of these facts were material to consumers’ (such as Plaintiff’s) purchase decisions.
40. Specifically, at all times relevant, HP continuously and consistently failed to
disclose to consumers (such as Plaintiff) that it was manufacturing its notebooks with defective
chips, and that it was not honoring warranty claims for those defective chips.
41. HP intended that Plaintiff and the Class would rely on the deception by
purchasing its notebooks, unaware of the material facts described above. This conduct
constitutes consumer fraud within the meaning of the various consumer protection statutes.
42. HP has violated the Acts in the sale of notebooks by selling said notebooks with
defective chips, and failing to disclose and/or concealing the defective chips from Plaintiff and
Class.
43. HP intended that Plaintiff and the Class would rely on the deception by
purchasing HP notebooks, unaware of the material facts described above. This conduct is
actionable within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Acts.
44. Defendant’s conduct constitutes unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive business
practices within the meaning of the Acts.
45. The above-described unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices by
Defendant continue to present a threat to members of the consuming public. Defendant’s
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 10 of 17
-11-
conduct as alleged herein violates the substantially similar unfair and deceptive acts and practices
laws of other states.
46. Defendant’s conduct has proximately caused damage to Plaintiff and Class
members in an amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class of persons described
herein, demands judgment as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a
class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and certifying the
Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and his counsel as
Class counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against
Defendant;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and Class members their individual damages and
attorneys’ fees and allowing costs, including interest thereon;
E. Granting such further relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT II
(Unjust Enrichment)
47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the prior paragraphs, as if fully
stated herein.
48. HP notebooks sold at retail contain defective chips.
49. Plaintiff and the Class have conferred benefits on Defendant by purchasing HP
notebooks.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 11 of 17
-12-
50. Defendant has knowingly and willingly accepted these benefits from Plaintiff and
the Class.
51. Under the circumstances, it is inequitable for Defendant to retain these benefits at
the expense of Plaintiff and the Class.
52. Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of and detriment of Plaintiff
and the Class by wrongfully collecting money to which Defendant, in equity, is not entitled.
53. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants all amounts
wrongfully collected and improperly retained by Defendant, plus interest thereon.
54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and
the Class have suffered injury and are entitled to reimbursement, restitution and disgorgement
from Defendant of the benefits conferred by Plaintiff and the Class.
55. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law.
56. Plaintiff seeks to obtain a pecuniary benefit for the Class in the form of all
reimbursement, restitution and disgorgement from Defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel are entitled to
recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses as a result of the conference of a pecuniary
benefit on behalf of the Class, and will seek an award of such fees and expenses at the
appropriate time.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class of persons described
herein, demands judgment as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a
class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and certifying the
Class defined herein;
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 12 of 17
-13-
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and his counsel as
Class counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor or Plaintiff and the Class and against
Defendant;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and Class members their individual damages and
attorneys’ fees and allowing costs, including interest thereon;
E. Imposing a constructive trust on amounts wrongfully collected from
Plaintiff and the Class members pending resolution of their claims herein;
F. Granting such further relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT III
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)
57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the prior paragraphs as if fully
stated herein.
58. The HP notebooks were defectively made, having left Defendants’ manufacturing
facilities with defective chips.
59. At all times relevant hereto, there was duty imposed by law which requires that a
manufacturer or seller’s product be reasonably fit for the purposes for which such products are
used, and that product be acceptable in trade for the product description.
60. Notwithstanding the aforementioned duty, at the time of delivery, HP notebooks
sold to Plaintiff and the Class were not merchantable.
61. As documented in its own business records and elsewhere, Defendant was notified
that its notebooks were not merchantable.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 13 of 17
-14-
62. As a result of the non-merchantability of the HP notebooks described herein,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class sustained a loss or damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class of persons described
herein, demands judgment as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a
class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), and certifying the
Declaratory Relief Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and his counsel as
Class counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against
Defendant;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and Class members their individual damages and
attorneys’ fees and allowing costs, including interest thereon; and
E. Granting such further relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT IV
(Declaratory Relief Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2201)
63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the prior paragraphs, as if fully
stated herein.
64. There is an actual controversy between HP and the Class concerning whether
problems with HP notebooks resulting from the defective chips are excluded from HP warranty
coverage.
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 14 of 17
-15-
65. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 this Court may “declare the rights and legal
relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could
be sought.”
66. HP has wrongfully excluded from warranty coverage problems resulting from the
defective chips.
67. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the problems with HP notebooks
resulting from the defective chips are covered by HP warranties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class of persons described
herein, demands judgment for an Order as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a
class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), and certifying the
Declaratory Relief Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and his counsel as
Class counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against
Defendant;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and Class members their individual damages and
attorneys’ fees and allowing costs, including interest thereon; and
E. Granting such further relief as the Court deems just.
CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN,
CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: /s/ James E. Cecchi
JAMES E. CECCHI
Dated: December 19, 2008
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 15 of 17
-16-
Of counsel:
Paul M. Weiss
George K. Lang
Michael J. Lotus
FREED & WEISS LLC
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 220-0000
Richard J. Burke
RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 650
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(314) 880-7000
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 16 of 17
-17-
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The undersigned hereby demands a trial by jury as to all claims so triable.
CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN,
CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: /s/ James E. Cecchi
JAMES E. CECCHI
Dated: December 19, 2008
Of counsel:
Paul M. Weiss
George K. Lang
Michael J. Lotus
FREED & WEISS LLC
111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 220-0000
Richard J. Burke
RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 650
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(314) 880-7000
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 17 of 17
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1-2 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 1 of 1
AO440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Hewlett-Packard Co.
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (name and address)
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served on you within 20 days after service of this
summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against
you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be
filed with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
CLERK, DATE
BY:_________________________________
DEPUTY CLERK
TRACY LEBLANC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff,
v.
HEWLET-PACKARD CO., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
CASE NUMBER:
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1-3 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 8/01) Summons in a Civil Action
RETURN OF SERVICE
Service of the Summons and Complaint was made by me1
DATE
NAME OF SERVER (PRINT) TITLE
Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service
 Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served:
 Left copies thereof at the defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of
suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:
 Returned unexecuted:
 Other (specify):
STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES
TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL
DECLARATION OF SERVER
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.
Executed on _________________________ ______________________________________________
Date Signature of Server
______________________________________________
Address of Server
(1) As to who may serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
#328686v1
Case 5:09-cv-00328-RMW Document 1-3 Filed 12/19/2008 Page 2 of 2