Frustration Over Broken Printer Leads Houston Firm to Sue HP Inc. for $100,000
Who among us has not, at some point in time, wanted to throw a malfunctioning printer out the window, or smash it with a sledgehammer? One Houston law firm took a different route—a lawsuit seeking $100,000—when its expensive printer broke and the firm felt that HP Inc. wasn't honoring its warranty.
May 01, 2019 at 04:10 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Printers: They can be a real pain in the butt.
Who among us has not, at some point in time, wanted to smash a malfunctioning printer?
One Houston law firm took a different route—a lawsuit seeking $100,000—when its HP printer broke, and the firm felt HP Inc. wasn't honoring its warranty by refusing to send a service technician to the office.
The litigation among The Cweren Law Firm, HP and a sales representative reached the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas after HP removed it to federal court. But it started in a Harris County Court-at-Law back in 2018.
The law firm bought an HP Color Laser Jet printer and a five-year warranty that promised in-person repairs, parts and service “at your door the very same business day,” said the June 2018 first amended petition in Cweren Law Firm v. HP. The company refused to send an on-site service person. The printing problem interfered with the busy firm's ability to conduct business, the petition said. The firm is suing the defendants for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty. It seeks to recover actual damages, attorney fees, interest and court costs.
The defendants denied all of the allegations in an amended answer in February. They argued the law firm didn't give examples to support allegations of how the printer problem interfered with business or caused economic damages. The answer argued that the warranty limits HP's liability for the alleged damages.
“Any alleged failure of HP to perform its obligations under the warranty is excused because plaintiff prevented HP from performing its obligations,” said the answer.
Brian Cweren, who founded the Cweren firm and is representing it in the lawsuit, said he paid $900 for the printer and between $1,100 to $1,200 for the warranty. From the get-go, paper would jam and it took an hour or even until the next day to print documents. Firm employees were tied up for hours on the phone with a foreign call center that offered troubleshooting tips that didn't work. The frustration culminated one day when the firm needed to print several large jobs and the printer delivered one page every three to four minutes, he said. When the firm demanded that HP honor the warranty by sending an on-site technician, Cweren said the company repeatedly refused to do it, even when he warned that he would sue.
“They took my money, and basically laughed at me,” Cweren said. “I feel like we were purely abused by them.”
While the case was still in county court-at-law, the parties had a discovery dispute. A judge ordered HP to respond fully to the firm's discovery requests and pay $2,500 in attorney fees.
Cweren said HP removed the case to federal court shortly afterward, and he thinks it's the wrong venue for the dispute.
“They don't like that judge's ruling, so they will go shopping for another judge,” he said.
The federal docket in the case includes an exhibit of emails between Cweren and HP Commercial Litigation Counsel Brad Hartz. Hartz wrote on April 4 that Cweren paid less than $2,000 for the printer and $900 for the warranty. He could recover the $900 for the warranty, but no lost profits or downtime, Hartz wrote.
He noted that Cweren's associate called HP on April 30, 2018, and that HP sent a technician the next day, but the firm wouldn't let the technician in. Hartz wrote that an HP sales representative received a “threatening email” and the firm waited less than one hour before it filed its lawsuit on May 1, 2018.
Hartz declined to comment, and so did HP's lawyer, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius associate Lewis Smith.
Cweren said the company isn't telling an accurate story about what happened.
He said, “They need to honor their commitment to me.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$31M Settlement Reached: Litigators Resolve Explosive Lithium-Ion Battery Damages Dispute
8 minute readMusic Streaming App Platform Musi Sues Apple on Breach-of-Contract Claims
Epic Games Sues Google, Samsung for Alleged Federal and State Antitrust Violations
'Data Breach' Insurance Policy Does Not Extend to Biometric Information Collection, Appellate Court Holds
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250