Weske v. Samsung Elecs, Am., Inc.

Weske v. Samsung Elecs, Am., Inc.

Opinion

 [*700]  WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that a circuit board defect (the "Defect") caused their Samsung refrigerators to stop cooling. Plaintiffs assert claims for the violation of various consumer  [**2] protection laws, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranty. Defendants Samsung Electronics, America, Inc. ("SEA") and Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. ("SEC") (together "Samsung") move under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims. Samsung also moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike, among other things, Plaintiffs' class allegations. There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the foregoing reasons, Samsung's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and its motion to strike is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiffs Jeff Weske, Jo Anna Frager, and Darryl Myhre, filed an original class action Complaint against Samsung on September 20, 2010. In that pleading, Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased defective Samsung refrigerators (the "Refrigerators") that stopped cooling after a certain period. For present purposes, the Refrigerators' warranty lasted for one year. Plaintiffs alleged that Samsung knew—or was reckless in not knowing—that the Refrigerators were defective. In support of  [**3] this allegation, Plaintiffs pointed to customer complaints Samsung received in early 2006 from unspecified consumers, to postings on a consumer affairs website in 2009 and 2010, and to a BBC report from 2008 diagnosing cooling problems in a Samsung refrigerator sold in the United Kingdom.

The original Complaint alleged four causes of action: (1) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (2) fraudulent concealment or non-disclosure; (3) breach of implied warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. The Court dismissed all four claims. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and then, before  [*701]  there was additional motion practice, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"). Unlike the original Complaint, the SAC identifies the Defect as a faulty circuit board. SAC ¶ 6, ECF No. 61.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.