C.Rulings On Motions To Strike Class ClaimsSometimes defendants opt to defeat putative classes before they grow larger by movingto strike class allegations contained in the pleadings pursuant to Rule 23(c), whichprovides “at an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a classrepresentative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as aclass action.” That is precisely what Samsung Electronics did in Lee, et al. v. SamsumgElectronics America, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168986 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2022).The plaintiff filed an action on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, delineated intofour state sub-classes, who all purchased Samsung’s black stainless steel kitchenappliances. The plaintiff alleged the appliances were not, in fact, black stainless steel;instead, they were regular stainless steel coated with a thin plastic finish that peeled,chipped, flaked, discolored, and disintegrated.The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s class allegations, even before discoverywas underway, because it argued the complaint itself demonstrated the plaintiff couldnot meet Rule 23’s requirements. Id. at *2. The plaintiff argued Rule 12(f) applied andpursuant to that standard, Samsung’s motion to strike should be denied. Id.The court agreed with Samsung that federal courts, including the Southern District ofTexas, had stricken class allegations in pleadings by analyzing Rule 23’s requirementsfor commonality and predominance. The court, though, also acknowledged that somefederal courts have lent support to the plaintiff’s Rule 12(f) position because thosecourts had held motions to strike were premature where discovery had not commencednor a motion for class certification been filed. Id. at *3. The court declined to follow thatline of case law, though, because it found those cases presented “a more limited classdefinition making class certification less unlikely on the pleadings” than the plaintiff’sclass definition here. Id.Analyzing the defendant’s motion to strike under Rule 23, the court found the classalleged a defect theory - the black plastic coating was present on every appliance thatputative class members thought was stainless steel and purchased accordingly sufficiently common to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s requirement. Id. at *4.However, the court found the plaintiff’s common law fraud and consumer fraud claimswere not appropriate for class treatment because the reliance element of fraud claimsnecessarily requires individualized proof that precluded predominance. Id. at *4-5.Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument that reliance could be inferred where it alreadyestablished Samsung made misrepresentations about its appliances, the court foundfederal and state law still required a showing of individual reliance on thosemisrepresentations. Id. The plaintiff’s class allegations failed to eliminate variationsbetween misrepresentations made to each individual class member. Id.Samsung also argued that the putative class could not be certified because state lawvaried as to the plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment claims. Id. Theplaintiff alleged a nationwide class in addition to four sub-classes defining membershipby state lines. Id. at *1. In response, the plaintiff argued Samsung’s conflict of law120© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
11
42
55
67
86
98
114
129
144
173
189
209
219
238
244
258
282
293
303
314
330
354
371
381
386
391
422
