Karim v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 124

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 114 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 117 Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2014)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
NAD KARIM,
6
Plaintiff,

No. C 12-5240 PJH

7
v.
8
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING
MOTION TO STRIKE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant.
_______________________________/
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and defendant’s motion to strike came on for

12

hearing before this court on December 24, 2014. Plaintiff Nad Karim (“plaintiff”) appeared

13

through his counsel, Jenelle Welling. Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. (“defendant”)

14

appeared through its counsel, Blaine Evanson. Having read the papers filed in conjunction

15

with the motions and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority,

16

and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

17

and DENIES defendant’s motion to strike, as stated at the hearing and as follows.

18

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege an earlier class start

19

date is denied, as plaintiff has not identified any newly-discovered information that would

20

justify his proposed amendment. Instead, it appears that plaintiff has been aware of the

21

alleged earlier start date since August 2013, and the court finds that permitting the

22

proposed amendment now would cause prejudice to defendant.

23

Defendant’s motion to strike the portion of plaintiff’s proposed class definition which

24

identifies 27 specific computer models is denied, as the court finds that the inclusion of

25

those models actually serves to narrow the class definition. While the court’s previous

26

order did not specifically allow the identification of the computer models, its ruling that

27

plaintiff was permitted to allege a California-only class was intended to allow the California-

28

only class proposed by plaintiff, which did include an identification of the 27 computer

1

models. The previously alleged class definition included all persons who “customized and

2

purchased from HP’s website a laptop computer containing a wireless card which HP

3

represented as capable of operating on both the 2.4 GHz and 5.0 GHz frequencies.”

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 24, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2