Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Background

Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin each bought a Samsung plasma television in 2013. Each television later developed colored lines on its screen. In 2018, two different Samsung-authorized service and repair facilities separately told the plaintiffs that a spare part was unavailable to repair their televisions.

The remaining claims included a claim under Section 1793.03(b) of the California Civil Code and a related claim under Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. Section 1793.03(b) requires a manufacturer that gives an express warranty for an electronic or appliance product to make service literature and functional parts available to repair facilities for at least seven years after the product model or type was manufactured. The court had previously granted Bronson’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Samsung had not made functional parts available for his television as required by Section 1793.03(b). The court had also allowed discovery concerning other television models containing the same faulty part, number BN96-25240A.

The parties first proposed a September settlement. That proposal involved an injunction-only class, no cash payment to class members, $6,000 payments to each of Bronson and Hardin, and a proposed request for $487,000 in attorney’s fees. The court denied preliminary approval of that proposal as unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, primarily because it prohibited notice to class members and imposed unreasonable procedures for objectors.

The parties then negotiated an October settlement, later revised at the court’s direction. The revised settlement covered California residents who owned one of three Samsung plasma television models—PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or PN51F5350—with a line issue requiring a replacement plasma display panel assembly. The revised agreement removed Bronson from the settlement agreement and no longer included his $6,000 payment. Hardin would receive $6,000, and counsel would seek $487,000 in fees.

Settlement Terms and Notice

The settlement class would receive no cash payment. The agreement stated that class members would not release claims for money damages, injunctive or equitable relief, or other relief. Under the settlement, Samsung would keep the relevant replacement part listed as available in its database through November 30, 2021, communicate with authorized service centers, and provide the part, a refund, or an exchange under the agreement’s terms. The notices explained that Samsung intended to exercise its discretion so that class members could choose an exchange or refund.

Class members would have to contact an authorized service center to confirm that the television had a qualifying line issue. If Samsung directed it, a class member would also have to return the television at Samsung’s expense. The settlement would not prevent class members from bringing their own damages claims or participating in a future class action, but the notice stated that the limitations period would begin running again after the notice period described there.

The revised notice plan required publication of a short-form notice in specified California publications and a longer notice on a settlement website. The court found that the proposed notice explained the action, the settlement’s injunctive relief, and the procedures for objecting and participating in the fairness hearing. The court ordered corrections to the short-form notice so that it identified the correct courtroom and used the same class definition as the long-form notice.

Class Certification Analysis

For settlement purposes, the court held that the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Numerosity was potentially difficult because the class could contain fewer than forty people, but the court concluded that absent class members would not be prejudiced because the settlement did not release their claims and they would receive notice.

Commonality and typicality were satisfied because Hardin’s claims arose from the alleged failure to make the same replacement part available, and the class members’ televisions had the same line problem requiring that part. The court found Hardin adequate to represent the class because she participated in the litigation, gave a deposition, and made her television available for inspection. The court also found that counsel had pursued relief through discovery, summary judgment motions, and class-certification proceedings and had experience in class actions.

The court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which applies when a defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and uniform injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate. The court found that the proposed relief—concerning availability of the replacement part, refunds or exchanges, and communications with authorized service centers—would apply uniformly to the class.

Preliminary Approval and Disposition

Under Rule 23(e), a class settlement requires court approval. The court concluded that the revised settlement appeared to result from informed negotiations, had no obvious deficiency after the required changes, did not improperly favor class members, and fell within the range of possible final approval. The court therefore preliminarily approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at a final approval hearing.

The court granted the motion for settlement-purpose class certification. It certified the class as California residents who own a Samsung plasma television model PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or PN51F5350 that has a line issue requiring a replacement plasma display panel assembly. The court appointed Crystal Hardin as class representative and Paul Rothstein and Kyla Alexander as class counsel.

The court also granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and approved both proposed forms of notice. It denied the prior motion for class certification for litigation purposes as moot. The order set deadlines for filing corrected notice, publishing the notices, filing objections, responding to objections, and seeking attorney’s fees and costs, and scheduled a February 27, 2020 hearing to consider final approval and fees. The opinion did not itself grant final approval of the settlement.