This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 07/19/2022 at 08:18:15 (UTC).

Trejo v. Sony Corporation of America

Case Summary

On July 12, 2022, Christina Trejo (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, represented by Jordan R. Frysinger of Mcguire Law, P.C., filed a contract lawsuit against Sony Corporation of America (a/k/a “Sony”) (“Defendant”), seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for the defendant’s alleged violation of consumer protection laws and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, with Judge Steven C. Seeger presiding.

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and a nationwide class (the “Class”), with one subclass (the “Subclass”). 

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Defendant is a multinational world leader in the manufacturing and selling of electronics including gaming consoles and related products. The PS5 is manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendant. The PS5 is Defendant’s newest highly demanded gaming console which was released in November 2020.”

The plaintiff alleged, “According to PlayStation’s President, Jim Ryan, the November 2020 release of its PS5 was the ‘biggest console launch of all time’ which featured over four million unit sales by January, 2021. Now, Sony has sold over 19.2 million units worldwide.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “Despite its large market success, Defendant’s PS5 contains a defect that causes the console to suddenly crash and power down while the user is playing video games that they purchased (the ‘Console Defect’). While the PS5 can be used for many entertainment purposes, playing video games on the console is its primary function. The Console Defect affects users’ ability to play video games and compromises the primary function and overall usage of the PS5.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant, who is in control of the manufacturing, marketing, advertising and sale of its PS5, was aware of the Console Defect through warranty repair requests, online consumer complaints, and its own online service resources. However, despite its knowledge of the Console Defect, Defendant failed to, and continues to fail to, disclose the defect to consumers prior to them purchasing the PS5, nor has Defendant taken any substantial action to remedy the problem.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Plaintiff, like other consumers nationwide, purchased the PS5 based on the express and/or implied representations made by Defendant that it would properly function. Nowhere did Defendant disclose to Plaintiff and other purchasers of the PS5 that there is a Console Defect which causes the PS5 to crash and power down.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “However, just months after she purchased it, the PS5 purchased by Plaintiff began to experience the Console Defect and would consistently crash and power down when playing the latest generation PS5 Games that were specifically made for the PS5. The PS5 would also fail to power back on after the Console Defect forced it to shut down. As a result of the Console Defect, the PS5 purchased by Plaintiff cannot be used for the purpose which she purchased it for. Had Defendant accurately disclosed this information, Plaintiff and other members of the Class would not have purchased the PS5.”

Plaintiff listed three claims for relief, including the alleged violation of consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award for actual or compensatory damages or, in the alternative, disgorgement of all funds unjustly retained by Defendant as a result of its unlawful practices, along with an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:22-CV-03603

  • Filing Date:

    07/12/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Steven C. Seeger

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Christina Trejo

Defendant

Sony Corporation of America

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger

Attorney at Mcguire Law, P.c.

55 W Wacker Dr., 9Th Fl

Chicago, IL 60601

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT filed by Christina Trejo; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19642454.(Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

#2

(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

#3

(#3) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christina Trejo by Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger (Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

#4

(#4) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by September 26, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2022
  • DocketSUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Sony Corporation of America (ey, ) (Entered: 07/13/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by September 26, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • DocketCLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rp, ) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • DocketCASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rp, ) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christina Trejo by Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger (Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT filed by Christina Trejo; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19642454.(Frysinger, Jordan) (Entered: 07/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jordan Ruvolo Frysinger