42 F. Supp. 3d 599
D.N.J.2014Background
- Putative class action alleging Samsung refrigerators stop cooling due to a defective control board; defendants SEA and SEC are the corporate defendants; plaintiffs across multiple states purchased various Samsung refrigerator models with a one-year warranty and a five-year sealed refrigeration system warranty; alleged defect causes ice buildup in condenser and loss of cooling; plaintiffs rely on Dr. Silzars’ analysis and maintenance/service data to identify the defect; Samsung allegedly knew of the defect and failed to disclose it, including pre-sale communications and post-sale service reports; TAC includes complaints, repair reports, and rising part orders as knowledge indicators; court granted in part and denied in part Samsung’s 12(b)(6) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent concealment reliance adequacy | Myhre may show indirect reliance; some plaintiffs lack pre-purchase communications | No pre-purchase communications received by plaintiffs; reliance not pled | Count 2 dismissed with prejudice for lack of reliance |
| Chermak and Polsean ICFA claims | Illinois claims survive with implied reliance | No pre-purchase communications pled for Polsean/Chermak | ICFA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Kean CLRA/UCL claims viability | Five-year warranty or safety issues could save claims | Off-warranty/one-year warranty governs; no safety issue pled | Kean’s UCL/CLRA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Causation/knowledge under Myhre (WCPA) and Weske (MUDTPA/MCFA) | Disclosures and defects causally linked to purchases; knowledge alleged from complaints and orders | Sufficient causation/knowledge not shown; must plead reliance | Claims survive; causation/knowledge requirements satisfied for these statutes |
| Frager OCSPA class/individual claims | OCSPA claims include class action; allegations show deceptive practice | Causation and notice requirements not defeated by class status | Frager individual OCSPA claim denied; class action OCSPA claim denied to be treated as pending later (denial of dismissal); class claim survives for OCSPA per ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; not mere speculation)
- Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 754 A.2d 1188 (N.J. 2000) (requirement to plead actual receipt of misstatement/omission or indirect reliance in NJ fraud claims)