Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al, No. 3:2018cv02300 - Document 171 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 130 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 165 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD AS MOOT. By Judge Alsup. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bronson-v-Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al Doc. 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ALEXIS BRONSON and CRYSTAL HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 12 13 14 15 No. C 3:18-cv-02300-WHA ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Alexis Bronson moves for partial summary judgment on his claims that 20 Samsung had not made spare parts available to authorized service and repair facilities. To the 21 extent below stated, plaintiff Bronson’s motion is GRANTED. 22 STATEMENT 23 A prior order provided the factual and procedural history of this action (Dkt. No. 154). 24 In brief, plaintiff Alexis Bronson purchased a Samsung 51-inch plasma Smart 3D HDTV 25 television in August 2013. The television turned out to be defective in that it displayed 26 colored-lines on the screen (Dkt. No. 98 ¶¶ 15, 52, 56–57). This putative class action lawsuit 27 against defendants Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 28 followed in April 2018 (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff amended the complaint in June 2018 (Dkt. No. 35). Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 asked whether a replacement part for the television screen was “available.” The employee at 3 the facility told him it was not. After the completion of Rule 12 motion practice, in January 4 2019, an order granted plaintiff Bronson leave to amend a second amended complaint which 5 included the new fact from October 2018. The newly amended complaint alleged two claims: 6 first, a violation of California Civil Code Section 1793.03(b), which provided: 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California 10 United States District Court In October 2018, plaintiff Bronson went to an authorized service and repair facility and Every manufacturer making an express warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance product . . . shall make available to service and repair facilities . . . functional parts to effect the repair of a product for at least seven years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product. 11 Second, a derivative violation of “unlawfulness” under Section 17200 of California’s Business 12 and Professions Code for the alleged violation of Section 1793.03(b). A new plaintiff, Crystal 13 Hardin, also intervened. 14 In April 2019, Samsung moved for summary judgment against plaintiff Bronson (not 15 plaintiff Hardin) (Dkt. No. 122). A hearing was held in May 2019. The motion was 16 subsequently denied (Dkt. No. 154). 17 Plaintiff Bronson now moves for partial summary judgment against Samsung (Dkt. No. 18 130). This motion for partial summary judgment raises two issues. First, whether Samsung 19 Electronics America Inc. is a manufacturer under the Act. Second, whether Samsung made the 20 spare parts for plaintiff Bronson’s television available to the authorized service and repair 21 facility. This order follows full briefing (Dkt. Nos. 141, 150) and oral argument. 22 23 ANALYSIS Under FRCP 56(c), partial summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, 24 and affidavits show that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 25 party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Material facts are those which may affect the 26 outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as 27 to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a 28 verdict for the nonmoving party. 2 1 Under Section 1793.03(b), Samsung must make functional parts available to service and 2 repair facilities for seven years after the product was manufactured. In full, Section 1793.03(b) 3 provides: Every manufacturer making an express warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance product described in subdivision (h), (i), (j), or (k) of Section 9801 of the Business and Professions Code, with a wholesale price to the retailer of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, shall make available to service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and functional parts to effect the repair of a product for at least seven years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product. 4 5 6 7 8 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 10 (emphasis added). In other words, Section 1793.03(b) has four requirements: the provision (i) 11 obligates manufacturers who make an express warranty (ii) on certain electronic products (iii) 12 to effect the repair of those products by making service literature and functional parts available 13 to service and repair facilities (iv) for seven years after manufacture. 14 Here, plaintiff Bronson’s plasma television is an electronic product with a wholesale 15 price of over $100. In addition, the television had been manufactured in 2013. Accordingly, 16 under Section 1793.03(b), service literature and function parts were required to be made 17 available for the television until the year 2020. The parties disagree whether one of the 18 defendants, Samsung Electronics America Inc., is a manufacturer. The parties also disagree 19 whether Samsung had sufficiently made the part in question available. This order addresses 20 each disagreement in turn. 21 1. 22 Section 1793.03 applies to “every manufacturer making an express warranty . . . .” Each 23 defendant in this action complies with part of this requirement, but not both. More specifically, 24 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer but does not make an express warranty. 25 Samsung Electronics America Inc., on the other hand, makes the express warranty but is 26 purportedly not the manufacturer (it is the distributor, according to Samsung). This order holds 27 that Samsung Electronics America Inc. meets the definition for “manufacturer” under the Song- 28 Beverly Act. “MANUFACTURER MAKING AN EXPRESS WARRANTY.” 3 1 The Act defines a “manufacturer” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, 2 association, or other legal relationship that manufactures, assembles, or produces consumer 3 goods.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j) (emphasis added). Samsung Electronics America Inc. is part 4 of a legal relationship (with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) which produces consumer goods. 5 It is true that the Song-Beverly Act separates a manufacturer from a “distributor.” A 6 distributor is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 7 relationship that stands between the manufacturer and the retail seller in purchases, 8 consignments, or contracts for sale of consumer goods.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(e). Nothing 9 precludes a single entity, however, from qualifying both as a manufacturer and as a distributor. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Samsung Electronics America Inc. seeks to escape liability on a technicality which if 11 allowed would open the door to corporate chicanery. Manufacturers would be incentivized to 12 have subsidiaries make express warranties merely to escape the requirements of the Song- 13 Beverly Act. Allowing this shell game runs counter to the Act. “Interpretations that would 14 significantly vitiate a manufacturer’s incentive to comply with the Act should be avoided.” 15 Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1244 (2004). Samsung Electronics 16 America Inc. qualifies as a manufacturer through its legal relationship with Samsung 17 Electronics Co., Ltd. to produce consumer goods. 18 2. “MAKE AVAILABLE TO SERVICE AND REPAIR FACILITIES.” 19 Turning to the other point at issue, this order holds that Samsung had not made 20 functional parts available to service and repair facilities to effect repair of plaintiff Bronson’s 21 plasma television. Plaintiff Bronson relayed in his deposition that the employee at the 22 authorized repair facility told plaintiff Bronson the part was not available. Samsung’s records 23 further showed that in March 2016 a different repair facility told a Samsung employee that the 24 identical part was not available. Between these two facts, plaintiff Bronson satisfied his initial 25 burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the part’s 26 availability. 27 28 4 1 2 center did not follow Samsung protocol to determine whether the part had been available. 3 According to Samsung, an issue of material fact therefore exists as to the part’s availability. 4 For the Northern District of California This argument, however, does not create a genuine issue of material fact. It merely 5 establishes that the repair facility did not follow protocol. Concluding that the part had not been 6 available because the repair facility did not follow protocol is mere speculation. A reasonable 7 jury would not return a verdict for Samsung based on this evidence. Accordingly, no genuine 8 dispute as to material fact exists. The parts had not been made available to the authorized repair 9 center in October 2018. 10 United States District Court Samsung does not dispute these facts in response. Instead, Samsung argues the repair Samsung also repeatedly asserts that the part has been available to plaintiff Bronson 11 since November 2018. This new availability does not satisfy Section 1793.03(b). The 12 availability of the part today is not the availability of the part back then. 13 14 A. PLAINTIFF BRONSON’S INITIAL BURDEN. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine 15 issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Under FRCP 56(c), 16 this evidence must be admissible. Here, plaintiff Bronson provides two pieces of evidence: 17 first, his own deposition and second, Samsung employee call records. This evidence 18 sufficiently demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. 19 20 i. Plaintiff Bronson’s Deposition. In October 2018, plaintiff Bronson asked an authorized repair facility whether the part 21 needed to fix the colored-lines on his broken television was available. According to plaintiff 22 Bronson, the employee responded as follows: 23 24 25 26 He goes, he gets on the computer. He punches in — I didn’t see — I saw him on the computer. I’m assuming he punched in the model number and whatnot, and he says, yeah, that part’s going to cost about 900 bucks. And then within two seconds he says, oh, but it’s not available. And I said, you can’t order anywhere? And he said no, they no longer make it. And that was that. 27 (Bronson Depo. at 170:9–17) (emphasis added). This demonstrates the employee 28 communicated to plaintiff Bronson that the part reflected was no longer made nor available. 5 Samsung objects to this evidence as hearsay. This evidence, however, falls within an 1 2 exception to hearsay. It is therefore admissible. Specifically, Federal Rule of Evidence 3 801(d)(2)(D) allows statements “made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the 4 scope of that relationship and while it existed.” The statements made by the authorized repair- 5 center employee in October 2018 were made by Samsung’s agent. Samsung authorized the 6 repair center to repair parts on Samsung’s behalf. The statements were made within the scope 7 of that relationship. The objection fails. ii. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 8 Samsung Employee Call Records. 9 Samsung employee call records further corroborate that the exact part in question had 10 been unavailable to another service and repair facility. The broken part causing the colored- 11 lines on plaintiff Bronson’s plasma television is the plasma display panel assembly (Samsung 12 part number BN96-28902A) (Dkt. No. 141-2 ¶ 11). The Samsung employee call records demonstrate that in March 2016, a customer called 13 14 Samsung seeking repair of a product that had been purchased at Best Buy. The customer did 15 not know the part number so the Samsung employee called the repair center for the part’s 16 information. The repair center provided the part numbers. One of the numbers provided, BN- 17 9628902A, is the identical part number as the broken part in this action. The repair center 18 confirmed to Samsung the parts were unavailable. The entry concluded with the ticket being 19 processed for review due to the unavailability of the part and that Samsung would follow up 20 with the customer within 48 business hours (Dkt. No. 149-4 at 3).1 Samsung also objects to this evidence as hearsay. This evidence, however, falls within 21 22 the same exception to hearsay. Specifically, Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), which 23 allows statements “made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that 24 relationship and while it existed” to be admitted. 25 Here, the March 2016 record had been written by a Samsung employee. The interaction 26 related to repair of a product. The interaction also recorded statements made by an employee of 27 1 28 The Samsung employee recorded the interaction: “[f]ollow up call service center Spoke to: Jennifer provided my [sic] with the part #BN96-28902A and #BN96-25221A witch [sic] non [sic] of them are available please [sic] the account on review for part [no longer available] . . . ” (Dkt. No. 149-4). 6 1 a repair center. Although the record itself does not specify that the facility was authorized, it is 2 not reasonable to infer that Samsung would call an unauthorized repair facility. Samsung has 3 not put forward any proof that the repair facility in question, Ross Technology Solutions, was 4 an unauthorized repair facility. Mere speculation does not create a factual dispute. Nelson v. 5 Pima Comm. College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081–82 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). * 6 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 * * Accordingly, these two pieces of evidence sufficiently demonstrate that Samsung at 8 least twice did not make part number BN96-28902A available to its service centers. This began 9 at least in March 2016 and continued until August 2018. Both sets of evidence are admissible 10 under FRE 801(d)(2)(D). Plaintiff Bronson has accordingly met his initial burden to satisfy the 11 elements. B. 12 13 DEFENDANT SAMSUNG’S RESPONSE. When the moving party has met its burden of production, the nonmoving party must, by 14 its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 15 trial. “This burden is not a light one. The non-moving party must show more than the mere 16 existence of a scintilla of evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 17 2010) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough 18 evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Celotex Corp., 477 19 U.S. at 323. 20 Samsung makes two arguments to attempt to establish a genuine issue of material fact. 21 First, Samsung argues the repair center did not follow Samsung protocol to determine whether 22 the part had been available. Therefore, according to Samsung, an issue of material fact exists as 23 to the part’s availability. Second, Samsung repeatedly asserts that the part has been available to 24 plaintiff Bronson since November 2018. Neither argument sets forth specific facts showing 25 there is a genuine issue for trial. Specifically, Samsung still has not provided any evidence that 26 the part in question was available to the authorized service facility in October 2018. 27 28 7 i. 1 Samsung’s first argument fails. The Authorized Service Center Service Policy and 2 3 Procedure Guide (for Fall 2014) required Samsung repair centers to follow a particular 4 procedure when ordering parts. More specifically, that “[a]ll parts MUST be Purchased from 5 Samsung via the [Global Service Partner Network] website . . . [i]f GSPN website ordering is 6 not available, you can place your order by e-mail or by fax” (Dkt. No. 161-7 at 37) 7 (capitalization in original). Plaintiff Bronson never established the repair center employee 8 followed this protocol or that an order had been placed by e-mail or by fax. Still, this protocol has no bearing on whether or not the part had been made available to For the Northern District of California 9 United States District Court The Service Center Procedure Guide. 10 the authorized service and repair facilities. “There must be sufficient evidence that a reasonable 11 jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 12 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Yet, Samsung 13 only offers speculation. No reasonable jury would return a verdict for Samsung based on this 14 evidence. ii. 15 Availability Today. Samsung remains fixated on the part having been repeatedly made available through the 16 17 litigation (starting in November 2018) and therefore has satisfied its requirements under the 18 statute. The availability of the part today, however, is not availability of the part back then. 19 Samsung’s efforts come too late. Manufacturers cannot be permitted to engage in a game of 20 chicken with consumers, daring them into litigation only to moot the litigation by complying 21 with Section 1793.03 once the litigation has commenced. This would be untenable and anti- 22 consumer. “[T]he Song–Beverly Act . . . is manifestly a remedial measure, intended for the 23 protection of the consumer; it should be given a construction calculated to bring its benefits into 24 action.” Murillo v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 985, 990 (1998) (quotation and citation 25 omitted).2 * 26 * * 27 2 28 One week before the hearing, Samsung moved to supplement the record with evidence that the parts had this month been relocated to a California warehouse. This evidence has no impact on the availability of the part to authorized repair centers in October 2018. The motion is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. 8 1 In sum, the provision expressly requires that the part be made “available to service and 2 repair facilities.” This does not mean the manufacture must own the part. Neither does this 3 mean the manufacturer can skate by merely making the part available to customers. Rather, the 4 part must be made available to the service and repair facility. Plaintiff Bronson has 5 demonstrated two instances where repair facilities had asserted that the exact part at issue here 6 had not been available to them. Samsung never rebutted this evidence. Accordingly, the facts 7 alleged compel the finding that the part had not been made available to the authorized service 8 and repair facility in October 2018. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CONCLUSION To the foregoing extent, plaintiff Bronson’s partial motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: June 26, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
