934 F. Supp. 2d 698
D.N.J.2013Background
- Putative class action alleging Samsung refrigerators with a circuit-board defect stopped cooling.
- Plaintiffs claim violations of various state consumer-protection laws, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranty.
- SAC adds three new plaintiffs and identifies the defect as a faulty circuit board; alleged notice of the defect in 2006.
- Court previously dismissed NJCFA, fraudulent concealment, and Minnesota warranty claims without prejudice; Ohio warranty claim allowed to proceed.
- Two 2006 notices to Samsung came from customers Mary Johnston and Eugene Ruta; two unconfirmed internet postings referenced, none tied to named plaintiffs.
- Court granted leave to amend; later decisions addressed Rule 9(b) pleading standards and state-law adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts I and II meet Rule 9(b) pleading | Weske asserts relaxed standard when information is within defendant's control. | Samsung argues particularity required; claims fail under Rule 9(b). | Counts I and II dismissed without prejudice for lack of Rule 9(b) specificity. |
| Whether CA, IL, and OH consumer-protection claims survive 12(b)(6) | Plaintiffs move to maintain state-law CP claims across multiple states. | Samsung contends no viable state-law CP claims under applicable standards. | CA and IL claims dismissed; OH class claim not viable; some claims survive none. |
| Whether Minnesota warranty claim survives | Plaintiffs contend unconscionability tolls warranty claim. | Warranty unconscionability not proven; Minnesota claim should be dismissed. | Minnesota warranty claim dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether Ohio warranty claim survives | Frager as Ohio plaintiff asserts tortious breach of implied warranty. | Economic loss doctrine does not bar ordinary consumer with privity lacking. | Ohio warranty claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, how)
- In re Craftmatic Sec. Litig., 890 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989) (relaxed Rule 9(b) standard when information is within defendant's exclusive control)
- De Bouse v. Bayer, 235 Ill.2d 544, 922 N.E.2d 309 (Ill. 2009) (ICFA proximate-causation requires actual communication to plaintiff)
- Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (economic loss doctrine considerations in product liability)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) (fiduciary and warranty considerations in consumer claims)