Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:18-cv-02300
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Bronson v. Samsung Electronics America, Judge Alsup denied preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement and denied settlement-class certification as moot.
The proposed settlement's absent class members, the named plaintiffs Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and class counsel were affected. The ruling denied approval of the proposed settlement and denied settlement-class certification as moot, but allowed the parties to propose a new settlement.
What happened
Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin sued Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. over Samsung plasma televisions that developed colored lines when replacement parts were unavailable. They proposed settling the class action by giving each plaintiff $6,000 and paying lawyers $487,000, while absent class members would receive no money.
The proposed settlement narrowed the class, abandoned damages claims for the class, and prohibited notice to absent class members. It also required unusually burdensome procedures for anyone who wanted to object. The court found that these terms could leave class members unaware that they needed to pursue their own damages claims after the settlement.
Judge Alsup denied preliminary approval of the settlement because it was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate. He also denied certification of the settlement class as moot, while allowing the parties to propose a new settlement by October 4, 2019.
The detailed version
- Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-02300
- William Alsup
- Sept. 29, 2019
Background
Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin brought a proposed class action under California's Song-Beverly Act and California Business and Professions Code section 17200. They alleged that Samsung manufactured plasma televisions whose screens developed colored lines and that replacement parts were unavailable through authorized repair facilities.
The operative complaint proposed a class covering California residents who purchased Samsung plasma televisions manufactured between January 2009 and November 30, 2014, experienced a red-line problem, and could not obtain the necessary plasma display panel assembly. Before the settlement motion, the court denied Samsung's summary-judgment motion and granted Bronson's partial summary-judgment motion, holding that Samsung had not made functional parts available for service and repair facilities for Bronson's television as required by California Civil Code section 1793.03(b).
Proposed Settlement
The parties later proposed a settlement class limited to people in California who, as of July 1, 2019, still owned one of three specified Samsung plasma television models manufactured since January 1, 2013, had a line problem requiring a replacement display-panel assembly, and had that need confirmed through diagnostic testing by a Samsung-authorized service center.
The proposed settlement abandoned certification of a damages class in favor of an injunction-only class. The settlement class would receive no money. Bronson and Hardin would each receive $6,000, and class counsel requested $487,000 in fees. The agreement did not expressly reserve absent class members' damages claims and prohibited any notice to the settlement class.
Reasons for Denial
The court identified several problems with the proposed settlement. First, absent class members would receive no money and would not be told that class counsel had abandoned the damages claims or that they might need to bring their own lawsuits. The court noted that the litigation had paused the applicable time limits for the broader proposed class, but that this protection would have value only if class members learned that they needed to pursue their own claims.
Second, the settlement class was substantially narrower than the class proposed in the operative complaint. It excluded people who owned televisions manufactured before 2013, people who no longer owned their televisions as of July 1, 2019, people with other television models, and people whose televisions had not undergone the required diagnostic testing.
Third, the court found the objection procedures too burdensome. An objector would have had to provide identifying information, detailed arguments and supporting evidence, proof of class membership, and either a photograph and serial number or a notarized statement confirming authorized-service-center testing. The objector also would have had to state whether the objector intended to appear at the final approval hearing. The court further objected to requiring objectors to file their hearing papers within sixty days of preliminary approval and send copies to class counsel and Samsung's counsel, particularly because the agreement provided for no notice to the class.
The court stated that these problems made the settlement unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate. It also noted that other issues might exist, including whether the proposed class was sufficiently numerous and whether the proposed injunction provided an adequate remedy, but found the notice and objection problems sufficient to rule on the motion.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. It also denied as moot the motion to certify the class agreed upon for settlement purposes. The parties were permitted to move for a new class settlement by October 4 at noon, with a hearing scheduled for October 10 at 8:00 a.m. The separate class-certification motion remained held in abeyance. The court cautioned that any renewed settlement motion would need to identify specific record evidence showing that Hardin satisfied Rule 23's class-certification requirements, especially numerosity.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.