govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-02752-5

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MARY PATTISON, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
HP INC., 
Defendant. 
 

 
 
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Before the Court is defendant HP, Inc.’s (“HP”) “Motion for Summary Judgment,” 
filed March 13, 2026. Plaintiff Mary Pattison (“Pattison”) has filed opposition, to which HP 
has replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on May 29, 2026. David E. Wynne 
of Wynne Law PLLC and Jarrett Ellzey of Ellzey & Associates appeared on behalf of 
plaintiff. Michael J. Stortz and Rachel Berman of K&L Gates LLP appeared on behalf of 
defendant. Having considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the 
arguments of counsel at the hearing, and for the reasons stated in detail on the record at 
the hearing, the Court rules as follows.1 
Pattison, at her deposition, was shown a page from her Third Amended Complaint 
(“TAC”), in which she sets forth the following three bullet points representing the alleged 
misrepresentations on which her two claims, “Fraud” and “Violations of the Consumer 
Legal Remedies Act,” are based: 
 The purchaser can “Get 100% money back (excluding tax)” while 
covering “Accidental damage protection,” promising “hardware Repair 
Coverage” and “No extra fees for repairs.” 
 
1 The reasoning set forth in summary form below is in no manner intended to 
replicate the entirety of the Court’s analysis set forth at the hearing. 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 “With HP Pick Up and Return wit h Accidental Damage Protection 
Service, you’ll enjoy quick pickup, repair and return of your PC, 
shipping included. You’ll also have access to 24x7 technical support 
and extended coverage—while keeping your PC covered by the 
manufacturer that knows it best. Drops? Spills? We’ve got you covered 
from unexpected accidents. Extend and enhance protection beyond 
your standard limited warranty with reliable support, expedited repairs, 
and accidental damage protection. Multi-year options are available. … 
This is a Care Pack that qualifies for Risk Free Rebate. The Risk Free 
Rebate allows you to protect your PC with an HP Care Pack; and if you 
don’t use it, get your money back, excluding taxes paid, guaranteed.” 
 “Allow 6 to 8 weeks from the time that the claim is received by HP for 
processing. Then you will receive your rebate check by mail within 8-
10 business days.” 
(See TAC ¶ 16.) The first and second bullet points are no longer at issue, defendant 
having tendered, during the course of the action, the full amount of the rebate (see Decl. 
of Michael J. Stortz, Ex. B (plaintiff’s deposition transcript (“Tr.”)) at 144:7-11),2 leaving for 
resolution the representation as to a time frame. 
At her deposition, plaintiff was shown the above-referenced three bullet points, and 
was asked if she had “any specific recollection of seeing those statements on the HP 
 
2 To the extent plaintiff argues use of the phrase “risk free” is actionable because, 
according to plaintiff, “HP omitted that it lacked the infrastructure to effectively process 
rebate claims,” (see Opp at 15:16-18), the evidence on which she relies is unavailing, in 
that, with one exception, it post-dates the time of her purchase by a period of time 
ranging from two to five years thereafter (see Decl. of David E. Wynne (“Wynne Decl.”), 
Exs. 3-10); moreover, plaintiff acknowledges that, prior to the instant purchase, she 
purchased a Care Pack and received a full rebate in satisfactory fashion. (See Tr. 79:22-
80:6; 87:18-22.) As to the one exception, a series of internal emails concerning a 
malfunction with the customer service hotline at a time encompassing plaintiff’s purchase 
(see Wynne Decl., Ex. 11), such evidence has no bearing on HP’s ability to process 
rebate claims, nor has plaintiff shown how any problem with such phone number caused 
her any injury. 

 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
website at any time before filing suit in 2024,” to which plaintiff responded, “not verbatim, 
but I reviewed the content of these bullets and had an understanding of their meaning 
before I made the purchase in 2020.” (See Tr. 113:4-10.) 
Pattison’s counsel then sought to “clarif[y]” Pattison’s testimony by taking the 
representations one at a time and inquiring whether Pattison, before making her 
purchase, saw each of those representations. As to the first two bullets, i.e., the 
guarantees of “100% money back,” and a “Risk Free Rebate,” Pattison answered “Yes.” 
(See id. at 186:20-187:7.) 
As to the third bullet, however, her counsel asked, and in the broadest manner 
possible, “even if you can't remember exactly a rebate deadline for providing a full rebate 
for the cost of the Risk-Free Care Pack, do you recall generally seeing terms that 
indicated a rebate would be made within a certain time frame if the warranty was 
unused?” and plaintiff responded “I don’t recall.” (See id. at 187:8-14.) 
Under such circumstances, HP has met its burden of demonstrating Pattison has 
not raised and cannot raise a triable issue as to reliance, a requisite element of her two 
claims.3 
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 2, 2026 
 MAXINE M. CHESNEY 
 United States District Judge 
 
3 Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the above testimony is not the equivalent of the 
conflicting testimony found to create a triable issue in Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA 
LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2012), where the plaintiff “admitted she purchased the 
product without reading the label” but also testified she “specifically recall[ed] defendants’ 
representations of [the product] as ‘natural.’” See id. at 530-31. Here, by contrast, given 
the scope of the initial question, plaintiff’s answer thereto is not a clear statement of her 
having read and relied on any particular one of three distinct representations, but, rather, 
an ambiguous response, which, by a series of specific questions, was clarified. 

Passage view · GavelSight