Samsung Dryer Defect Class Action Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss

A class action lawsuit claiming a Samsung dryer defect causes the drums in the appliances to crack is intact after a motion to dismiss.

Samsung argued the class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not adequately established their claims. U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty tossed most of Samsung’s motion, but trimmed a few state law claims.

According to the class action lawsuit filed in 2018, certain Samsung models suffer from a dryer defect that causes the drum to crack, resulting in loud noises, destroyed clothing and potential fires. The plaintiffs say Samsung uses defective fly wheels and gauge steel that is too thin. The only remedy is a costly replacement of the drum, the complaint alleged.

The Samsung class action lawsuit accused the manufacturer of misrepresenting the quality of the high-end appliances to consumers, as well as of violations of federal warranty law and state consumer protection laws.

Judge McNulty upheld most of the class action lawsuit claims, including for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, noting the plaintiffs “offer factual support for their allegations that they had no meaningful opportunity to participate in creating the warranty or alter its terms in any way; for example, the warranty is included in product packaging ‘on a pre-printed form’ and the ‘[c]onsumers are not involved in the preparation of the warranty.’”

The judge also refused to dismiss claims that Samsung violated the Uniform Commercial Code and most claims for fraudulent omission under Ohio, New Mexico, New Jersey, Florida, California and Illinois law.

Samsung argued fire hazard claims should be dismissed because none of the plaintiffs alleged they had suffered a fire due to the dryer defect. Judge McNulty disagreed, noting that the class action lawsuit pointed out the potential for a fire if lint falls through a crack in the drum caused by the alleged defect.

“It is true that plaintiffs have not alleged any particular instances where the defect caused a fire,” the order stated. “That may suggest a future weakness in their case, but their theory of fire risk is sufficiently plausible to state a claim at this preliminary stage.”

“We are pleased with the court’s well-reasoned decision, as nearly all of the plaintiffs’ claims will move forward,” one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs told legal news source Law360 in response to the most recent order. “We are eager to continue pursuing the appropriate relief for the plaintiffs and putative class.”

Indeed, the only claims that were trimmed from the class action lawsuit were unjust enrichment claims under Florida, Illinois and Ohio state laws, as well as a misrepresentation claim under Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act.

According to the order dismissing certain claims, the class action lawsuit had failed to allege that the Florida plaintiff had purchased their Samsung dryer directly from the manufacturer, as required for an unjust enrichment claim under the state’s law; however, the judge did leave the door open to amend the complaint to rectify the claim.

“To properly plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law, plaintiffs must re-allege their claim with a plaintiff who purchased his or her dryer directly from SEA,” stated the order.

In addition, claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege that Samsung omitted information about the dryer defect.

Additionally, the judge noted that it appeared as if the plaintiffs had abandoned that claim.

“Because the complaint does not adequately plead an omission under the OCSPA, and because plaintiffs have abandoned any misrepresentation claim, no OCSPA claim remains,” the judge concluded.

According to the order, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to amend their class action lawsuit to address most of the dismissed claims except for dismissed allegations under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA).

“The ODTPA claims will be dismissed because consumers do not have standing to sue under that statute,” the judge said in his order.

The Samsung class action lawsuit seeks to represent consumers who purchased dryers with the defective drum. The plaintiffs are seeking a variety of damages, along with court costs and attorney fees.

Do you own a dryer affected by these alleged defects? We want to hear from you. Tell us about your experience in the comment section below.

The lead plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC and Sauder Schelkopf LLC.

The Samsung Dryer Defect Class Action Lawsuit is DeFrank, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-21401-MRB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• What Does Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Mean For Consumers?
• Peloton Recalls Clip-In Bike Pedals Following Breaks, Injuries
• Does Zantac Cause Cancer?
• Uber Sexual Assault, Lyft Driver Rideshare App Lawsuit Investigation