Case 2:10-cv-04811-WJM -MF Document 1
Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 45 PageID: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JEFF WESKE, JO ANNA FRAGER, and DARRYL MYHRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded Civil Action No. ___________________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jeff Weske, Jo Anna Frager and Darryl Myhre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, make the following allegations on personal knowledge and on information and belief. I. Identification of Parties (Local Rule 10.1) 1. The names and addresses of the named parties to this action are as
follows: (i) Plaintiff Jeff Weske, 915 12th Street, Cloquet, Minnesota, 55720; (ii) Plaintiff Jo Anna Frager, 17646 Whitney Road, Montville, Ohio, 44064; (iii) Plaintiff Darryl Myhre, 6201 122nd Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington, 98006; (iv) Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, 07660; (v) Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), 250 Taepyeongo 2-Ga, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-742, Republic of Korea.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 45 PageID: 2

II. 2.

Introduction
Plaintiffs bring this action for actual damages, equitable relief
(including restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of profits), and all other relief available on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated individuals and entities who own or have owned refrigerators sold by the Defendants (collectively, Samsung) containing a defect that causes the refrigerators coils to freeze over, resulting in the failure of the refrigerator to cool, which has caused consumers to suffer damages for lost groceries and repairs. The defective refrigerators do not perform their essential function of keeping food cool, rendering the refrigerators useless or of significantly diminished value long before the end of their reasonably expected useful life. The defect also presents risks to the safety of consumers due to food spoilage. Upon information and belief, the defect exists in all three varieties of refrigerators Samsung manufactures, including model numbers RF266AASH, RS263BBWP, RB1955SH, RS2533SW, RS267LASH, RS267TDRS, RS2630WW (the Refrigerators). All of the claims asserted herein arise out of Samsungs design, manufacture, warranting, advertising and selling of the Refrigerators. 3. On information and belief, Samsung began designing, manufacturing,
warranting, marketing, advertising and selling the Refrigerators to thousands of consumers throughout the United States, commencing in or around 2005. 4. The Refrigerators are designed and manufactured with a uniform and
inherent design defect that causes the coils to ice over and results in the failure of
Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 45 PageID: 3
the Refrigerator to cool. As a result of the defect, the Refrigerators do not stay cool, allowing food to spoil. 5. Samsung knew, or was reckless in not knowing, at or before the time it
sold the first unit, that the Refrigerators contained the defect and that the Refrigerators would fail prematurely due to the defect. Samsung had sole and exclusive possession of this knowledge. 6. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Samsung made uniform and material
misrepresentations and uniformly concealed material information in its marketing, advertising, and sale of the Refrigerators, which Samsung knew to be defective, both at the time of sale and on an ongoing basis. 7. At all times, in every communication, Samsung made uniform written
misrepresentations to and/or uniformly concealed from Plaintiffs and everyone in the chain of distribution the defects in the Refrigerators, and failed to remove the Refrigerators from the marketplace or take adequate remedial action. Rather,
Samsung sold and serviced the Refrigerators even though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the Refrigerators were defectively designed, would fail prematurely, and would ultimately result in Plaintiffs inability to use their refrigerators for their intended purpose during the time Plaintiffs reasonably expected they would have use of the Refrigerators. 8. The Refrigerators have in fact failed prematurely, whether within or

outside of applicable warranty periods.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 4 of 45 PageID: 4
As a consequence of Samsungs false and misleading statements and
active and ongoing concealment of the defect, Plaintiffs and the Class purchased and currently own defective refrigerators and have incurred damages. 10. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and the Class under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, et seq. (CFA). Plaintiffs also assert claims on behalf of themselves and the Class for breach of implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment under New Jersey law. 11. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution and/or
disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, attorneys fees, costs, and all other relief available to the Class. III. 12. Parties
Plaintiff Jeff Weske resides in Cloquet, Minnesota. He purchased a
new Samsung Side-by-Side Refrigerator (model number RS263BBWP) containing the defect in December 2006 from a Best Buy store in Duluth, Minnesota for approximately $1300. Weske set the refrigerators temperature at 38 degrees, as recommended by Samsung. In the spring of 2009, Weskes refrigerator stopped cooling. As a temporary fix, Weske unplugged his refrigerator to defrost the coils. Over the summer and fall of 2009, Weskes refrigerator continued to stop cooling, and each time that happened he continued to unplug the appliance to defrost the coils. Weske paid a local service company to repair the refrigerator, but the repairs had no effect and the refrigerator stopped cooling again 45 days after the repair.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 5 of 45 PageID: 5
Samsung customer service told Weske that his appliance was out of warranty and nothing could be done. Weske has suffered approximately $1,100 in damages for lost groceries as a result of the defect alleged herein and Samsungs misrepresentations and/or concealment regarding the defect. In addition, Weske has lost the value of his refrigerator, which does not perform its essential and only function. 13. Plaintiff Jo Anna Frager resides in Montville, Ohio. She purchased a
new Samsung French Door Refrigerator (model number RF266AASH) containing the defect on February 14, 2008, at a Lowes store in Mentor, Ohio. In June 2010, the refrigerator stopped cooling and Frager contacted a local repairperson who advised her to defrost the refrigerator. stopped cooling again. Roughly one month later, the refrigerator
Frager noticed that the ice buildup was touching her Frager again
refrigerators fan, which had been making an unusual noise.
attempted to defrost the refrigerator by unplugging it for several days. As a result of Samsungs refrigerator design defect, and failure to inform consumers of this problem or to recall its refrigerators, Frager suffered approximately $360 in lost groceries. In addition, Frager is without a fully functional refrigerator and has lost the value of her refrigerator, which does not perform its essential and only function. 14. Plaintiff Darryl Myhre resides in Bellevue, Washington. He purchased

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred and emanated out of this District, and Defendants conduct has injured Class members residing in this District. Defendant SEA transacts business and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business within this District. Accordingly, this Court has
jurisdiction over this action and venue is proper in this Judicial District. 19. The Federal Courthouse located in Newark, New Jersey is the proper
vicinage for this matter because SEA has its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. V. 20. Factual Background
On information and belief, Samsung has been engaged in the business
of designing, manufacturing, warranting, marketing, advertising, and selling Samsung-brand refrigerators and other appliances in the United States since 2005.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 8 of 45 PageID: 8
Samsung is one of the worlds leading manufacturers of refrigerators
and other appliances. Samsung has designed, manufactured, warranted, marketed, advertised and sold several product lines of refrigerators. Samsung sells high-end refrigerators through major retail stores such as Best Buy and Home Depot to consumers throughout the United States. Samsung refrigerators are available in three varieties: (1) french door, (2) side-by-side, and (3) bottom freezer, with retail prices ranging from $900 to $3,000. 22. Samsung uniformly markets its refrigerators as highly-rated, top-of
the-line appliances. For example, Samsung describes its refrigerators as featuring a unique patented TWIN Cooling Systemtm that offers advanced cooling technology that delivers uncompromised freshness in both the freezer and refrigerator compartments by circulating cold air with individual fans, and offers professionalgrade cooling. See [Online Marketing Brochure], Exhibit A, attached. The Defect 23. The Refrigerators fail to perform as advertised, because their coils ice
over and cause the Refrigerators to stop cooling, leading to spoiled food. The Refrigerators are designed and manufactured with heated coils that are intended to prevent excess frost from developing in the back of the machine. Instead of
preventing frost, however, the coils allow frost and ice to build up in the Refrigerators until the ice clogs and/or disables the machines fans, making it impossible for the fans to work to keep the machine cool.

Filed 09/20/10 Page 9 of 45 PageID: 9
The defect renders the Refrigerators unusable because they are unable
to keep food cool. A refrigerator that unexpectedly rises to room temperature poses significant health risks to consumers, as groceries that are not kept cool can cause food-borne illnesses. The defect also poses dangerous risks for those customers who rely on medications that must be kept cool in their refrigerators. 25. Even after the Refrigerators internal temperature rises to room
temperature, according to consumer complaints, any exterior temperature display nonetheless indicates that the machine is at a standard cool temperature, which further enhances the risk of illness for those customers who are misled to believe that the food or medications within the Refrigerators has been kept cool and is safe to eat or ingest. 26. Samsung failed to adequately design, manufacture, and/or test the
Refrigerators to ensure they were free from defects at the time of sale. 27. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs have used their Samsung refrigerators
in a foreseeable manner and in the manner in which they were intended to be used. 28. The defect, which manifests during the expected useful life of the
Refrigerators, both within and outside applicable warranty periods, is substantially likely to prevent the Refrigerators from performing their essential function, and it makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to use the Refrigerators as intended during their expected useful lives. 29. Had the defect been known to consumers, the Refrigerators would not

have been merchantable.

Filed 09/20/10 Page 10 of 45 PageID: 10
The defect rendered the Refrigerators unfit for the ordinary purpose
for which refrigerators are sold at the time they were sold to Plaintiffs and members of the Class. 31. The defect has necessitated and will continue to necessitate
replacement of and/or costly repairs to the Refrigerators. 32. The Refrigerators have a uniform design defect that causes the Defrosting the Refrigerators
appliances to stop cooling and become unusable.
provides a temporary fix that lasts only until ice builds up again weeks or months later. Plaintiffs and Class Members Reasonable Expectations 33. In purchasing the Refrigerators, Plaintiffs legitimately expected the
refrigerators to operate in accordance with to their intended purpose to keep food cool. 34. Consumers reasonably expect that refrigerators like the Refrigerators
at issue here will function properly for at least 10 years. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers has found that the life expectancy of refrigerators is 14 years for side-by-side models, and 17 years for bottom freezer models. 35. Plaintiffs and members of the Class reasonably expected the to effectively refrigerate perishable food items during the

interviewed about the defect, their efforts to have the problem corrected and Samsungs refusal to offer any assistance when their refrigerators were out of warranty. The program featured an interview with a refrigeration expert who examined a Samsung RS21 model refrigerator and determined that the problem was a result of a design defect that caused the coils to freeze over with ice, which caused the refrigerators fan to stop running. Once the fan stopped running, the refrigerator stopped cooling. This BBC Watchdog program is available on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V467FBmK6QQ. 45. As a result of the Watchdog episode, Samsung apologized to U.K.
consumers and offered them an extended 5-year warranty as to all claims related to the defect. Id. Nonetheless, Samsung has refused to provide relief to United States consumers for the same defect on the ground that warranty periods have elapsed. In so doing, Samsung continues to profit from its misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Refrigerators. The following is a small sample of recent consumer
Filed 09/20/10 Page 13 of 45 PageID: 13
complaints regarding the defect and Samsungs refusal to address it, as detailed on www.consumeraffaris.com: a) Richard of MACON, GA March 16, 2010. Bought samsung RS253BASB/XAA on 11/18/2006 at Best Buy. After 2 years 3 months the water stopped working and then the refrigerator side got around 50 degrees even though temp said 34.Authorized repairman came and charged us 79.00 service call to tell us the defrost coil was faulty and only way for him to fix was to replace the whole coil with defrosted that was built in it. I did this at cost of about 60.00 and the unit ran for about 5 months Ok until now in March 2010 it is all happening again.We had to throw food out a couple of times and I believe we got food poisoning eating food that we did not know was bad when we were relying on the temp. that the refrigerator said that it was. Annette of Pacifica, CA January 3, 2010. I am thorougly disgusted with my 3-year old Samsung Refrigerator Model number RB215LASH. I have had it serviced 5 times in the past 9 months due to the coils FREEZING UP! Each time the repairman comes to my home, it costs me 185.00 to have him DEFROST my 3 year old FROST-FREE refrigerator that cost me over 1000.00!!!! I have almost doubled the cost of my refrigerator with the 5 service calls at 185.00 each!!! Perhaps Samsung should consider refunding me for this lemon of a refrigerator, since I can no longer afford to pay to have it DEFROSTED. I will NEVER purchase another SAMSUNG product again, and will advise everyone I know to stay avoid this brand. Ashley of Wanette, OK December 8, 2009. On 07/01/2007 we purchased a Samsung RS2530BSH/XAA refrigerator from Best Buy. 06/25/2008 I noticed a loud whining noise coming from the back freezer side. On 07/10/2007 I contacted Samsung who sent out a service technician. The service technician took off the inside back [sic] panel of the freezer and used my hair dryer to melt the block of ice that had frozen over the fan. After that the fridge worked fine.for 5 weeks. After spending 100 on a service call for someone to "blow-dry" my freezer fan I decided to investigate the matter myself. Sure enough the freezer fan was frozen over. So about every 4-6 weeks I have to get out the hair dryer and melt the ice away from the fan. On 11/04/2009 the refrigerator and freezer both stopped cooling. Kathleen of Los Angels, CA August 22, 2009. I purchased the Samsung refrigerator on 12/20/2004 from Best Buy. I have had no

defect. Nonetheless, it advised customers to incur the related expenses. Samsungs Omissions and Misrepresentations 51. Samsung failed to adequately design, manufacture, and/or test the
Refrigerators to ensure that they were free from the defect, and/or knew, had reason to know, or was reckless in not knowing of the defect when it uniformly warranted, advertised, marketed and sold the Refrigerators to Plaintiffs and the Class. 52. Samsung did not disclose to its customers the fact that the defect
existed at the time of sale and that the defect would render the Refrigerators unable to perform their essential function well before the end of their expected useful lives. Nor did Samsung disclose that warranty or the recommended post-warranty repairs would not cure or rectify the defect and would only, at best, briefly delay the impact of the defect and thereby postpone failure in the Refrigerators. 53. Instead, in its uniform marketing and advertising, Samsung falsely
represented that the Refrigerators were free from defects and that they would
Filed 09/20/10 Page 17 of 45 PageID: 17
perform their essential function; namely, to keep food cool. Samsung uniformly markets its refrigerators as featuring a unique patented TWIN Cooling Systemtm that offers advanced cooling technology that delivers uncompromised freshness in both the freezer and refrigerator compartments by circulating cold air with individual fans, and offers professional-grade cooling. 54. Samsung knew that consumers were unaware of the latent defect and
that they reasonably expected the Refrigerators to effectively refrigerate perishable food items. Samsung also knew that customers expected Samsung to disclose a defect that would prevent the Refrigerators from performing their function long before the end of their expected useful lives, and that such disclosure would impact consumers decision whether to purchase the Refrigerators. Samsung knew and intended for consumers to rely on its material omissions with regard to the defect when purchasing the Refrigerators. 55. As a result of Samsungs uniform omissions and misrepresentations in
its marketing and advertising, Plaintiffs believed that the Refrigerators would operate without defects to keep food cool, and Plaintiffs purchased Samsung refrigerators in reliance on that belief. 56. Samsungs representations that the Refrigerators were free of defects
and would adequately refrigerate perishable food items were not true. Samsung knew or was reckless in not knowing when it sold the Refrigerators that the defect would manifest long before the end of the Refrigerators expected useful lives, rendering the Refrigerators unable to keep food cool.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 18 of 45 PageID: 18
Samsung had the capacity to, and did, deceive consumers into
believing that they were purchasing refrigerators that were free from defects and could be used safely and practically to store and cool food. 58. Samsung actively concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs,

Samsung concealed this material information in every
communication it had with Plaintiffs, the Class, and everyone in the chain of distribution. Plaintiffs are aware of no document,
communication, or other place or thing, in which Samsung disclosed this material information to anyone outside of Samsung. information appears in no sales documents, no Such no

displays,

advertisements, no warranties, no owners manual, nor on Samsungs website. e) How: Samsung concealed this material information by not disclosing it to Plaintiffs, the Class, or anyone in the chain of distribution at any time or place or in any manner, even though it knew this information and knew that it would be important to a reasonable consumer, and even though its omissions with regard to the defect and consequent premature failures of the Refrigerators were contrary to its representations about the Refrigerators. f) Why: Samsung concealed this material information for the purpose of inducing Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase the defective Refrigerators at full price rather than purchasing competitors refrigerators or paying Samsung less for the Refrigerators, given their limited utility. Had Samsung disclosed the truth, Plaintiffs (and
reasonable consumers) would not have bought the Refrigerators, or would have paid less for them.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 21 of 45 PageID: 21
New Jerseys Substantive Law Applies To the Proposed Nationwide Class 62. New Jerseys substantive laws may be constitutionally applied to the
claims of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Due Process Clause, 14th Amend., 1, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, art. IV., 1, of the U.S. Constitution. New Jersey has significant contact, or significant aggregation of contacts, to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and all Class members, thereby creating state interests that ensure that the choice of New Jersey state law is not arbitrary or unfair. 63. The application of New Jerseys laws to each of the claims alleged by
the Class is also appropriate under New Jerseys choice of law rules. In particular, New Jersey law applies to the CFA claim under the most significant relationship test, and New Jersey law applies to the remaining claims under either the most significant relationship test or the government interest test. 64. New Jersey has significant contacts and/or a significant aggregation of
contacts to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and all Class members. 65. New Jersey has a materially greater interest than any other State in

enforcing its laws with respect to the conduct of corporations located in and doing business principally in New Jersey. The application of New Jersey law to the
conduct of corporations based in New Jersey furthers strong fundamental public policies of the State of New Jersey. 66. Specifically, New Jerseys interest in this case and in regulating
conduct under its laws arise from, among other things, the following:
Filed 09/20/10 Page 22 of 45 PageID: 22
SEAs headquarters and principal place of business are located in New Jersey;
SEA owns property and conducts substantial business in New Jersey; upon information and belief, SEA pays corporate income taxes to the State of New Jersey, giving New Jersey an interest (among other interests) in potential judgments affecting its revenue;
SEA receives in New Jersey the revenues generated by the sale of the Refrigerators;
New Jersey has an interest in deterring unlawful conduct on the part of its resident corporations;
the justified expectations of the parties would be best served by applying New Jersey law, since SEA is based in New Jersey;
some members of the proposed Class reside and/or purchased Refrigerators in New Jersey;
New Jersey is the State from which SEAs misconduct emanated. Upon information and belief, SEA became aware of the defect in, and its nondisclosure scheme was orchestrated from, the location of its present headquarters in New Jersey. SEAs marketing efforts relating to the Refrigerators were created and orchestrated from its headquarters in New Jersey. SEA also disseminated from its New
Jersey headquarters the marketing materials relating to the Refrigerators; and
Filed 09/20/10 Page 23 of 45 PageID: 23
Upon information and belief, SEAs warranty and customer affairs departments are located at its New Jersey headquarters, and SEAs correspondence with consumers regarding the defect alleged herein and its decision to refuse to correct the defect in Refrigerators occurred from its New Jersey headquarters. VII. Tolling
Discovery Rule: The causes of action alleged herein accrued upon
discovery of the defective nature of the Refrigerators. Because the defect is latent, and Samsung took steps to actively misrepresent and conceal it, among other reasons, Plaintiffs and members of the Class did not discover and could not have discovered the defect through reasonable and diligent investigation. Moreover,
reasonable and diligent investigation into the cause of the freezing coils did not and could not reveal a factual basis for a cause of action based on Samsungs misrepresentation and concealment of the defect. 68. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling: Any applicable statutes of
limitation have been tolled by Samsungs knowing and active misrepresentation, concealment and denial of the facts as alleged herein, which concealment is ongoing. Plaintiffs and the Class have been kept ignorant by Samsung of vital information essential to the pursuit of these claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on their part. Plaintiff and members of the Class could not reasonably have discovered the true, latently defective nature of the Refrigerators.

Filed 09/20/10 Page 24 of 45 PageID: 24
Estoppel: Samsung was and is under a continuous duty to disclose to
the Plaintiffs and the Class the true character, quality, and nature of the Refrigerators. Samsung knowingly, affirmatively, and actively concealed the true character, quality, and nature of the Refrigerators, which concealment is ongoing. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Samsungs knowing, affirmative, and/or active and ongoing concealment. Based on the foregoing, Samsung is estopped from relying on any statues of limitation in defense of this action. VIII. Class Action Allegations 70. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 71. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows: All persons or entities residing in the United States who own, or have owned, Samsung refrigerator models RF266AASH, RS263BBWP, RB1955SH, RS2533SW, RS267LASH, RS267TDRS, RS2630WW and/or any other Samsung refrigerator model containing a defect that causes the refrigerators coils to ice over and the refrigerator to stop cooling. Excluded from the Class are (a) Samsung, any entity in which Samsung has a controlling interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns, and successors, (b) the United States government and any agency or instrumentality thereof; (c) the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judges immediate family; and (d) claims for personal injury, wrongful death and/or emotional distress.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 25 of 45 PageID: 25
Numerosity/Impracticability of Joinder:

The members of the

Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. The proposed Class includes tens of thousands of members. The Class is composed of an easily ascertainable, self-identifying set of individuals and entities that own or owned the Refrigerators. The precise number of Class members can be ascertained by reviewing documents in Defendants possession, custody, and control. 73. Commonality and Predominance: There are common questions of

law and fact that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. These common legal and factual questions, include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Whether the Refrigerators contain common design and/or
manufacturing defects; b) Whether the Refrigerators are substantially certain to fail before the end of their reasonable expected life; c) d) Whether the Refrigerators are not of merchantable quality; Whether the existence of the defect in the Refrigerators is a material fact reasonable purchasers would have considered in deciding whether to purchase a refrigerator; e) Whether Samsung knew or was reckless in not knowing of the defect in the Refrigerators; f) Whether Samsung engaged in a pattern of fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading conduct involving the marketing and sale of the
Filed 09/20/10 Page 26 of 45 PageID: 26
Refrigerators; g) Whether Samsung consciously concealed or failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class with respect to the defect in the Refrigerators; h) Whether Samsung knew that consumers were unaware of the defect and that they expected the refrigerators to be free from defects at the time of sale; i) Whether Samsung knew that consumers would expect their
refrigerators to effectively cool perishable food items; j) Whether Samsung knew that customers would expect it to disclose the existence of a known defect that would prevent the refrigerators from keeping food items cool, and that such disclosure would impact consumers decision as to whether to purchase the Refrigerators; k) Whether Samsung intended that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class rely on its acts of concealment and omissions when purchasing the Refrigerators; l) Whether, as a result of the foregoing acts, omissions, and practices, Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have suffered an ascertainable loss by purchasing defective refrigerators that are unable to perform their essential function of keeping food cool, and that present a risk to the safety of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, including the risk of food-borne illness;
Filed 09/20/10 Page 27 of 45 PageID: 27
Whether Samsungs false and misleading statements of facts and concealment of material facts regarding the defect in the Refrigerators were likely to deceive the public;
Whether Samsungs acts and omissions violated the New Jersey CFA; Whether Samsung fraudulently concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class the defect in the Refrigerators;
Whether Samsungs conduct breached implied warranties; Whether Samsung has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members;
Whether Plaintiffs and Class members suffered any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the false promise or misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of material fact;

facts known to Samsung with the intent to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and the Class. 107. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
demand judgment against Samsung for actual and punitive damages for themselves and each member of the Class, plus attorneys fees for the establishment of a common fund, interest, and costs. THIRD COUNT (Breach of Implied Warranties) 108. forth herein. 109. At all times relevant herein, Samsung was in the business of Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if fully set
manufacturing and selling refrigerators. 110. Samsung has brought itself into privity with Plaintiffs and the Class
members by warranting the Refrigerators to them directly and/or through the agency doctrine. 111. At all times relevant herein, Samsung impliedly warranted in a
uniform manner to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class that the Refrigerators were of the same or greater quality as generally accepted for refrigerators, and were safe and fit for their intended use as refrigerators. 112. Contrary to Samsungs implied warranties, the Refrigerators were not
of merchantable quality at the time of sale, as they were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, and/or do not conform to the promises or
Filed 09/20/10 Page 36 of 45 PageID: 36
affirmations of fact made in the promotional literature.

The Refrigerators

contained an inherent defect at the time of sale that was substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product such that the refrigerators would be unable to keep food cool. 113. Samsung knew or was reckless in not knowing of this defect, but sold
the Refrigerators without disclosing the defect to Plaintiffs. 114. At the times that Samsung marketed and sold the Refrigerators for
use by Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, Samsung had actual or constructive knowledge of the particular purposes for which the Refrigerators would be used. 115. At the times that Samsung marketed and sold the Refrigerators for

use by Plaintiff and the proposed Class, Samsung had actual or constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs and the proposed Class would and did rely upon the skill and judgment of Samsung to select and furnish refrigerators that were suitable for the purpose of keeping food cool. 116. Contrary to Samsungs implied warranty, the Refrigerators were not The
fit for their intended and known use by Plaintiff and the proposed Class.
Refrigerators contain an inherent defect that is substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product. 117. Samsung knew or was reckless in not knowing of the defect in the
Refrigerators and did not act on that knowledge. Samsung continued to actively conceal from customers that the Refrigerators they purchased were defective at the time of sale.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 37 of 45 PageID: 37
Had the defect that existed at the time of sale been known, the
Refrigerators could not have been sold, or could not have been sold at the same price. 119. Had Plaintiffs been aware of the defect that existed at the time of sale,
they would not have purchased the Refrigerators, or would have paid less for them. 120. Samsung has received timely notice of the breach of implied
warranties alleged herein. Samsung has been put on notice by the Class as a whole by reason of its own knowledge of the defect, and by warranty claims and other complaints made by Plaintiffs and Class members. 121. Any express limitation or negation of Samsungs implied warranties
that the Refrigerators were fit to perform their essential purpose, when such was not the case, would be unreasonable and unconscionable and, accordingly, is unenforceable. 122. As a direct and legal result of the breach of implied warranties by
Samsung, Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Class sustained actual and consequential damages in an amount to be determined according to proof at time of trial. FOURTH COUNT (Unjust Enrichment) 123. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 124. Samsung has been unjustly enriched by the sale of the Refrigerators to
Plaintiffs and the Class members.

Filed 09/20/10 Page 38 of 45 PageID: 38
Plaintiffs seek to recover for Samsungs unjust enrichment under New
Jersey State law. 126. Plaintiffs and the Class members conferred a benefit on Samsung, but
Samsung failed to disclose its knowledge that Plaintiffs did not receive what they paid for and misled Plaintiffs and the Class regarding the qualities of the Refrigerators while profiting from this deception. 127. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable,
unconscionable, and unjust to permit Samsung to retain the benefit of these profits that it unfairly has obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class members. 128. Plaintiffs and the Class members, having been injured by Samsungs
conduct, are entitled to restitution or disgorgement of profits as a result of the unjust enrichment of Samsung to their detriment. X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Class, pray for judgment against Samsung granting the following relief: 1. An order certifying this case as a class action and appointing
Plaintiffs to represent the Class and Plaintiffs counsel as Class counsel; 2. Restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by
Samsung as a result of its misconduct, together with interest thereon from the date of payment, to the victims of such violations; 3. All recoverable compensatory and other damages sustained by
Plaintiffs and the Class;
Filed 09/20/10 Page 39 of 45 PageID: 39
Actual and/or statutory damages for injuries suffered by
Plaintiffs and the Class in the maximum amount permitted by applicable law, including mandatory treble damages pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; 5. An order (1) requiring Samsung to immediately cease its
wrongful conduct as set forth above; (2) enjoining Samsung from continuing to conceal material information and conduct business via the unlawful, unfair and deceptive business acts and practices complained of herein; and (3) requiring Samsung to refund to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class the funds necessary to repair or replace the Refrigerators as appropriate; 6. damages; 7. Payment of reasonable attorneys fees and costs as may be Statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the Class
allowable under applicable law; and 8. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Filed 09/20/10 Page 40 of 45 PageID: 40

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all causes of action so triable.