Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 06/26/2021 at 08:37:58 (UTC).

VASADI et al v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

Case Summary

On April 27, 2021, Jean Vasadi, Danielle Moyer, Josh Shepherd, Lindsey Stonebraker, Greg Treacy, and Scott Teitsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by James E. Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. filed an antitrust class action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, damages among other reliefs for alleged Defendant’s misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Shattered Products. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey with Judges Andre M. Espinosa and William J. Martini presiding. 

 

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of the following Class: All persons or entities in the United States who purchased or leased one or more of the Shattered Product and various  State subclasses i.e. New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. 

 

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that “The Samsung Galaxy S20 and S20 Ultra phones were released on March 6, 2020, and the S20 FE (Fan Edition) was released on October 2, 2020. The phones have a prominent back camera module that encases multiple camera lenses. The S20 and S20 FE have three back camera lenses, and the S20 Ultra has an even larger back camera module,  and an additional camera lens, for a total of four “quad” back cameras. The S20 is a “camera- focused” phone, marketed by Samsung as the “The Complete Pro-Grade Camera Solution.” The phones command a premium price of up to $1,600.00.” and that Unfortunately, the S20’s back camera module’s glass can shatter suddenly (“the Shattered Defect”), under normal use, with no external force applied and render the camera unusable.”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that “At the time of sale or lease of each Shattered Product, Samsung knew, should have known, or was reckless in not knowing of its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Shattered Product’s inability to perform as warranted, but nonetheless failed to rectify the situation. Under the circumstances, the remedies available under any informal settlement procedure would be inadequate, and any requirement that Plaintiffs resort to an informal dispute resolution procedure and/or afford Samsung a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of warranties is excused and thereby deemed satisfied.”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that “Accordingly, Defendant engaged in unlawful trade practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission, in connection with the sale of Shattered Products.”

 

The Plaintiffs have laid down two claims each for National class. These claims are for alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. § 2301, ET SEQ. The Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, alleged violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 ET SEQ.), the state claims are for alleged violations of the New York General Business Law § 349 (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349), alleged fraud by concealment, alleged breach of express warranty and alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability under New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. 

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs have requested the Court to certify this action as class action, grant injunctive relief against Samsung for continuing unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices, and grant injunctive relief in the form of a product recall. The Plaintiffs further requested the Court to grant restitution, damages, including punitive damages, exemplary damages and treble damages, and disgorgement, award statutory and civil penalties including both pre- and post-judgment interest along with costs of litigation. 

 

Disclaimer: 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:

    2:21-CV-10238

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    New Jersey District

Judge Details

Referral Judge

Andre M. Espinosa

Presiding Judge

William J. Martini

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

SCOTT TEITSCH

DANIELLE MOYER

JEAN VASADI

GREG TREACY

LINDSEY STONEBRAKER

JOSH SHEPHERD

RIDGE BERRY

ETHAN GALLOWAY

LAURA LUCA

LOGAN MCQUILLEN

JEFFREY TAYLOR

JUSTIN JONES

ANNA KING

CHARLES REGNA

GORDON FRIEND

SCOTT KING

AMBER O'CONNOR

JOSE RODRIGUEZ

JUSTIN O'CONNOR

Defendant

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

1 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

JAMES E. CECCHI

Attorney at CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068

Defendant Attorneys

RICHARD A. EDLIN

Attorney at GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166

DAVID JAY

Attorney at GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP

500 Campus Drive, Suite 400, Po Box 677

Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677

JACLYN M. DEMAIS

Attorney at GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

500 Campus Drive, Suite 400

Florham Park, NJ 07932

 

Court Documents

#7

(#7) STIPULATION AND ORDER that Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint on or before May 28, 2021; that Defendant shall file its Motion to Compel Arbitration on or before July 12, 2021; Plaintiffs' Opposition will be due on or before August 26, 2021; and Defendant's Reply will be due on or before September 16, 2021; that the deadline for Defendant to answer, move pursuant to Rule 12(b), or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint is extended until thirty (30) days after the Court enters an Order deciding Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa on 5/28/2021. (ld, ) (Entered: 06/01/2021)

#6

(#6) STIPULATION to Amend Complaint, to Extend Deadline to Respond, and to Set Briefing Schedule by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.. (JAY, DAVID) (Entered: 05/27/2021)

#5

(#5) AMENDED COMPLAINT against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., filed by DANIELLE MOYER, JEAN VASADI, SCOTT TEITSCH, JOSH SHEPHERD, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, GREG TREACY, JUSTIN JONES, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ANNA KING, LOGAN MCQUILLEN, SCOTT KING, RIDGE BERRY, AMBER O'CONNOR, SAMUEL SMITH, JEFFREY TAYLOR, CHARLES REGNA, LAURA LUCA, ETHAN GALLOWAY, GORDON FRIEND.(CECCHI, JAMES) (Entered: 05/27/2021)

#4

(#4) Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Attorney DAVID JAY,RICHARD A. EDLIN,JACLYN M. DEMAIS for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. added. (DEMAIS, JACLYN) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

#3

(#3) SUMMONS Returned Executed by SCOTT TEITSCH, JEAN VASADI, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, JOSH SHEPHERD, DANIELLE MOYER, GREG TREACY. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. served on 5/3/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. (TAYLOR, LINDSEY) (Entered: 05/06/2021)

#2

(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (jc, ) (Entered: 04/28/2021)

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-12412296) with JURY DEMAND, filed by SCOTT TEITSCH, JEAN VASADI, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, JOSH SHEPHERD, DANIELLE MOYER, GREG TREACY.(CECCHI, JAMES) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) STIPULATION AND ORDER that Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint on or before May 28, 2021; that Defendant shall file its Motion to Compel Arbitration on or before July 12, 2021; Plaintiffs' Opposition will be due on or before August 26, 2021; and Defendant's Reply will be due on or before September 16, 2021; that the deadline for Defendant to answer, move pursuant to Rule 12(b), or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint is extended until thirty (30) days after the Court enters an Order deciding Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa on 5/28/2021. (ld, ) (Entered: 06/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) STIPULATION to Amend Complaint, to Extend Deadline to Respond, and to Set Briefing Schedule by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.. (JAY, DAVID) (Entered: 05/27/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) AMENDED COMPLAINT against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., filed by DANIELLE MOYER, JEAN VASADI, SCOTT TEITSCH, JOSH SHEPHERD, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, GREG TREACY, JUSTIN JONES, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ANNA KING, LOGAN MCQUILLEN, SCOTT KING, RIDGE BERRY, AMBER O'CONNOR, SAMUEL SMITH, JEFFREY TAYLOR, CHARLES REGNA, LAURA LUCA, ETHAN GALLOWAY, GORDON FRIEND.(CECCHI, JAMES) (Entered: 05/27/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketClerk`s Text Order - The #4 Application for Clerk's Order to Ext Answer/Proposed Order submitted by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 6/7/2021. (jc, ) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Attorney DAVID JAY,RICHARD A. EDLIN,JACLYN M. DEMAIS for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. added. (DEMAIS, JACLYN) (Entered: 05/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) SUMMONS Returned Executed by SCOTT TEITSCH, JEAN VASADI, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, JOSH SHEPHERD, DANIELLE MOYER, GREG TREACY. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. served on 5/3/2021, answer due 5/24/2021. (TAYLOR, LINDSEY) (Entered: 05/06/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (jc, ) (Entered: 04/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge William J. Martini and Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa. (ak, ) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-12412296) with JURY DEMAND, filed by SCOTT TEITSCH, JEAN VASADI, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER, JOSH SHEPHERD, DANIELLE MOYER, GREG TREACY.(CECCHI, JAMES) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jaclyn DeMais

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RICHARD A. EDLIN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DAVID JAY