TEXAS : DELL PRINTER CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT DISMISSED

[Anonymous]

http://www.masstortdefense.com/2009/07/articles/class-action-dismissed-in-printer-litigation/
TEXAS : DELL PRINTER CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT DISMISSED
The federal court
has dismissed a proposed class action accusing Dell Inc. of
fraudulently marketing an ink-jet printer feature to convince customers
to replace ink cartridges that don’t need to be replaced yet. Dajani v.
Dell Inc., 2009 WL 1833983 (N.D.Cal. June 25, 2009).

Dajani
alleged that Dell fraudulently marketed its Ink Management System, a
technology feature on all Dell ink jet printers.  The feature will
display ink levels on a status window during a print job. The complaint
alleged that the Ink Management System was highly imprecise and
inaccurate, and that it was designed to deceive customers into replacing
what they believed to be nearly empty cartridges, when they actually
still contained a substantial amount of usable ink. Dajani sought to
represent a class of all Californians who own or have owned Dell ink jet
printers.Judge Susan Illston rejected the lawsuit, without leave to
amend the complaint.  Previously, the court had dismissed California-law
based claims, as the terms and conditions of his sales agreement
provided for Texas law to be allied to all claims. The amended complaint
alleged a claim under Texas law for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and a claim of unjust
enrichment.

The court
ruled last week that the claim for the breach of implied warranty of
merchantability could not survive, because the printer was not
unmerchantable as the term is defined under Texas law. The product must
be unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used because of a
lack of something necessary for adequacy.  Dell argued that the ordinary
use of the product was printing, not measuring ink, and that any
alleged imprecision in the Ink Management System had no impact on that
basic function. The court agreed, finding that at most, plaintiff had
alleged that the use of the Ink Management System is cumbersome because
of allegedly premature replacement prompts. The device still worked. 
And plaintiff hurt his claim by alleging that upon receiving “low ink”
warnings, he simply removed and discarded his ink cartridge and replaced
it with a new one. Such was “plainly at odds” with the product’s
instruction manual, which states that a low ink warning appears when ink
cartridges are low, not yet empty, and that a separate “reserve tank” 
window appears when they are empty.

The judge also dismissed the
unjust enrichment claim because under Texas law, when a valid, express
contract covers the subject matter of the parties’ dispute, there can be
no recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment. Fortune Prod. Co. v.
Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex.2000) (“Parties should be bound by
their express agreements. When a valid agreement already addresses the
matter, recovery under an equitable theory is generally inconsistent
with the express agreement.”).Because plaintiff cannot cure the defects
mentioned above through the pleading of additional facts which do not
contradict those already made, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed
without leave to amend.

[Author]

March 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM