Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Background

Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin purchased Samsung plasma televisions manufactured in 2013. Both televisions later developed colored lines on their screens. Two Samsung-authorized repair facilities told the plaintiffs that Samsung did not have the necessary spare part to repair the televisions.

The operative complaint asserted two claims: a claim under California Civil Code section 1793.03(b), concerning a manufacturer’s obligation to make functional repair parts available for at least seven years after a product model is manufactured, and a derivative claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 based on the alleged violation of section 1793.03(b). The court later certified a settlement class consisting of California residents who own one of three specified Samsung plasma television models exhibiting a line problem requiring replacement of the display panel assembly.

The settlement was an injunctive-only class settlement. The parties had previously proposed another settlement, which the court did not preliminarily approve. After further negotiations and revisions, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and approved the notice plan.

Notice and Settlement Terms

Notice was provided through a settlement website, publication in specified newspapers and a magazine, and a third-party class-action information website. No class members filed timely or late objections. The court found the notice adequate and decided that additional notice was unnecessary.

The settlement did not release class members’ claims for money damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief, or other relief, including claims related to the affected televisions. Hardin separately released claims related to the underlying dispute. The court found the release appropriately tailored because class members gave up no claims while retaining the settlement’s benefits.

The settlement allows class members to receive an exchange or refund for a broken television. Samsung must update its internal website to show authorized service and repair facilities that the faulty part is available, contact authorized service centers about the parts’ availability, and provide annual statements reporting the number of settlement class members who received some form of settlement relief in the prior year.

Final Approval

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a court must approve a class settlement that binds absent class members only after adequate notice and a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court found that the class representatives and counsel adequately represented the class, the agreement resulted from extensive mediation, continued litigation would impose risks and costs and delay relief, and the settlement provided sufficient relief despite the abandonment of certification of a damages class.

The court therefore granted final approval of the proposed class settlement. In its conclusion, the court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and as the product of good-faith, arm’s-length negotiations.

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

The court determined that the plaintiffs were prevailing buyers under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act because the settlement achieved their litigation objectives on a practical level. Although the settlement was characterized as providing injunctive relief, the exchange-or-refund option substantially provided the compensatory relief sought in the complaint and exceeded the value of merely making replacement parts available.

Class counsel documented a lodestar of $1,400,000, representing attorney and paralegal time spent on the action, but sought only $487,000 in combined attorney’s fees and expenses. Counsel discounted work that was inefficient, duplicative, unnecessary, or related to claims that had been dismissed. The court found the requested $487,000 reasonable, even though the expense documentation was less detailed than normally required. The award was not deducted from a monetary class settlement and was to be paid separately by Samsung.

The court awarded class counsel $487,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Half was to be paid immediately, and the remaining half was to be paid when the work implementing relief for the class was completed. The court did not make findings about the reasonableness of the lodestar, the hours billed, or the billing rates because the parties had agreed to the fee amount and the court found that amount reasonable.

Incentive Award and Disposition

Hardin requested a $5,000 incentive award for her work prosecuting the case, plus $1,000 for a new television. The court denied the additional $1,000 because it exceeded the relief available to the class. The court found an incentive award of $500 reasonable and granted the incentive-award request in part. Any exchange or refund for Hardin’s television was to be the same relief available to other class members.

Judge William Alsup entered the stated rulings: the class settlement was approved; class counsel was awarded $487,000 in attorney’s fees; Hardin was awarded $500 as an incentive payment; and judgment would be entered separately.