Samsung Complaint
Samsung Complaint
Samsung Complaint
No.
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
began, complaints surfaced that the Note7s were overheating and catching fire.
Accordingly, Samsung recalled the defective devices and notified consumers that
they should immediately discontinue using the smartphones and exchange them for
replacements.
3.
Note7s only to find out that Samsung did not have replacement smartphones
available. Instead, Samsung informed consumers that they would have to wait
several days, and even weeks in many cases, before receiving a replacement
smartphone.
4.
suffered injury in fact, incurred millions of dollars in fees, and have otherwise been
harmed by Samsungs conduct.
6.
Defendants breach of express warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and common law fraud.
THE PARTIES
7.
21, 2016, Plaintiff Waudby purchased a Note7 in the state of Nevada and suffered
damages as a result of Defendants conduct.
8.
August 24, 2016, Plaintiff Ibrahim purchased a Note7, in the state of California
and suffered damages as a result of Defendants conduct.
10.
corporation with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
Samsung is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which is
a Korean company headquartered in Suwon, South Korea. Defendant has been and
still is engaged in the business of distributing, marketing, and selling smart phones
and other products throughout United States and this district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.
U.S.C. 1332(d) because the aggregated claims of the individual class members
exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; there are
more than 100 putative class members defined below; and there are numerous
members of the proposed class who are citizens of a state different from Defendant
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367.
12.
has conducted substantial business in this judicial district, and intentionally and
purposefully placed Note7 smartphones into the stream of commerce within the
District of New Jersey and throughout the United States.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14.
touted, high-end, flagship smartphone, the Galaxy Note7, which sells for
approximately $850. Shortly after the smartphones highly anticipated release,
however, reports began to surface that the new smartphones were overheating and
exploding in the hands of consumers.
15.
16.
had been reported worldwide, Samsung suspended sales of the Note7 smartphone.
As a result, Samsung announced the U.S. Product Exchange Program for Note7
owners and stated that the new Galaxy Note7 would be available next week.
17.
investigation and had found a battery cell issue in the Note7 phones. Samsung
stated that it was working with its supplier to identify possible affected batteries in
the field, but that because safety was an absolute priority, it had decided to stop
sales of the Note7. For those customers already owning a Note7, Samsung
announced that it would voluntarily replace each device with a new device over
the coming weeks.
19.
20.
place of purchase or call their designated local call center as soon as possible to
exchange their device for a new Galaxy Note7 (with an updated battery).
Alternatively, consumers could choose to exchange their Note7 for a Galaxy S7 or
Galaxy S7 Edge, both of which are less expensive and offer less advanced
technology than the Note7.
22.
begin the Note7 exchanges nationwide. And even on that date, only an estimated
500,000 replacement devices had arrived in the United States. In fact, as of
September 27, approximately 40 percent of the unsafe Note7s sold in South Korea
and the United States still had not been replaced with new devices.
24.
Consumers were left without the safe use of smartphones that they
6
had purchased, while waiting approximately three weeks (or more) for the
replacement Note7s to become locally available for exchange. During this time,
consumers continued to incur monthly device and plan charges associated with
their Note7s.
25.
monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed
through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.
26.
monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed
through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.
27.
monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed
through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.
28.
29.
emergency order to ban all Samsung Galaxy Note7 smartphone devices from air
transportation in the United States. Individuals who own or possess a Samsung
Galaxy Note7 device may not transport the device on their person, in carry-on
baggage, or in checked baggage on flights to, from, or within the United States.
This prohibition includes all Samsung Galaxy Note7 devices. The phones also
cannot be shipped as air cargo.
30.
travel by air with their Samsung Galaxy Note7 devices, the phones may be
confiscated and passengers may face fines.
33.
classes:
All persons and entities in Nevada that purchased
or financed a Samsung Galaxy Note7 (the Nevada
Class).
All persons and entities in Pennsylvania that
purchased or financed a Samsung Galaxy Note7
(the Pennsylvania Class).
All persons and entities in California that
purchased or financed a Samsung Galaxy Note7
(the California Class).
34.
Excluded from all classes are the Judge(s) to whom this case is
assigned and any member of the Judges immediate family, along with
Defendants employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their
immediate family members. Also excluded are those persons who have suffered
personal injuries as a result of the facts alleged herein.
36.
37.
fact, which predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members.
These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the
following;
a. Whether Samsung engaged in the conduct alleged herein;
b. Whether Samsung breached any warranties through its conduct as
alleged herein;
c. Whether Plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to restitution
for monthly device and plan charges for phones they could not safely
use during the relevant period;
d. Whether Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to recover
compensatory damages as a result of Samsungs breach of warranty.
38.
members because, inter alia, all members of the Class were injured through the
common misconduct described above and were subject to Samsungs breach of
warranty. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of
themselves and all members of the Class.
39.
represent and protect the interests of the Class in that they have no disabling
conflicts of interest that would be antagonistic to those of the other members of the
10
Class. Plaintiffs seek no relief that is antagonistic or adverse to the members of the
Class and the infringement of the rights and the damages they have suffered are
typical of other Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in
complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this
action vigorously.
40.
The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiffs
and the Class make the use of the class action device a particularly efficient and
appropriate procedure to afford relief to Plaintiffs and the Class for the wrongs
alleged because Samsung would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage
11
since they would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each
individual Class member with superior financial and legal resources; the costs of
individual suits could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be recovered;
proof of a common course of conduct to which Plaintiffs were exposed is
representative of that experienced by the Class and will establish the right of each
member of the Class to recover on the cause of action alleged; and individual
actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be unnecessary and
duplicative of this litigation.
42.
proposed class and subclasses before the Court determines whether certification is
appropriate and as the parties engage in discovery.
43.
The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because of the number and nature
of common questions of fact and law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve
the interest of judicial economy.
44.
12
individual Class members prosecuting separate claims is remote, and even if every
Class member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly
burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Individual Class members do not
have a significant interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
actions, and the individualized litigation would also present the potential for
varying, inconsistent, or contradictory judgments and would magnify the delay and
expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the
same factual issues. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be encountered in the
management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. A
class action in this matter will avoid case management difficulties and provide
multiple benefits, including efficiency, economy of scale, unitary adjudication with
consistent results and equal protection of the rights of each Class member, all by
way of the comprehensive and efficient supervision of the litigation by a single
court.
45.
litigation.
13
COUNT I
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Pennsylvania,
California and Nevada Classes)
47.
members Note7s that were subject to a known and dangerous defect and known to
fail prematurely.
50.
damages including but not limited to monthly charges and fees, loss of use of the
Note7, substantial loss in value and resale value of their Note7s, and other related
damage.
51.
under the warranty, or otherwise have been excused from performance of said
obligations as a result of Defendants conduct described herein.
14
COUNT II
COMMON LAW FRAUD
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Pennsylvania,
California and Nevada Classes)
53.
continue incurring and paying monthly charges and fees for their Note7s, which
they could neither use nor replace.
56.
knowledge of their falsity, and with the intent that Plaintiffs and Class memebrs
rely upon them.
57.
failing to notify Plaintiffs and Class members that replacement Note7s would not
be made available in a timely manner, or that the Note7 would be discontinued
entirely.
61.
Plaintiffs and Class members some benefit of the bargain originally intended by
the parties, thereby causing them injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class,
respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
B.
C.
16
D.
E.
F.
G.
18