Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection Television Marketing

May 20, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S.D.J.


I. Preliminary Certification of Class, for Purposes of Settlement Only

The Court hereby certifies, for the sole purpose of considering the Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Settlement" or "Agreement), executed by counsel for the Defendants and class counsel on May 18, 2010, and filed herewith, a settlement class of "all end-user consumers in the United States who purchased or received as gifts Sony SXRD high definition rear projection television models KDS-R60XBR2, KDSR70XBR2, KDS-50A2000/2020/3000, KDS-55A2000/2020/3000, KDS-60A2000/2020/3000, and KDS-70Q006." The Settlement Agreement contains a provision making the owners of KDS-70Q006 televisions severable from the remainder of the settlement class.*fn1

Although the Court has not held a hearing to determine if the terms of the proposed settlement are fair and reasonable to members of the class, the Court finds that this settlement class meets all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for preliminary certification. First, counsel have represented that the class likely contains roughly 350,000 individuals. Letter from McKenzie Anderson (May 17, 2010). Accordingly, the Court finds that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." F.R.C.P. 23(a)(1). Second, no party has pointed to any evidence that the factual issues among the separate models vary dramatically; they all involve high definition rear projection television sets, an unknown proportion of which have optical blocks that have malfunctioned producing a characteristic "yellow stains, green haze, and other color anomalies" on the television screens. Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.3. Nor has any party suggested that the legal issues confronting the owners of varying models will vary with any significance. Counsel for the Meserole plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to challenge the factual commonality, with respect to the owners of KDS-70Q006 televisions. The Court finds that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class," F.R.C.P. 23(a)(2), and notes that the Meserole plaintiffs had previously agreed to include the KDS-70Q006 television owners in a proposed settlement agreement with Sony. Ex. A to Purcell Decl. (Mar. 9, 2010), at 7. Third, the claims of named plaintiff Sabrina Cardenas are similar factually and legally to those of the entire settlement class. The defects in the optical blocks, as alleged, all pertain to optical blocks which malfunction to produce yellow stains, green haze and other color anomalies on the television screens, and the legal claims relate to Sony's limited warranty and violations of various consumer protection statutes. Therefore, the Court concludes that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class."

F.R.C.P. 23(a)(3). Fourth, the Court finds that the representative party, Sabrina Cardenas, sharing the same legal and factual situation as the class members, "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." F.R.C.P. 23(a)(4).

This case has generated a substantial amount of controversy -- seven purported class actions have been brought in federal courts, five in the Southern District of New York, one in the Eastern District of New York, and one in the Eastern District of Texas, and have been consolidated herein by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. With a class as large as 350,000 consumers, and with many of these consumers presenting similar, if not identical complaints, the Court concludes that, in this matter, "the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." F.R.C.P. 23(b)(3).

The Court therefore preliminarily certifies the above defined class, without prejudice to future challenges to the commonality of the class and the possible exclusion of persons who purchased television model KDS-70Q006, as reserved by counsel for the Meserole plaintiffs at the conference held on May 6, 2010.

II. Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

The Second Circuit has stated that preliminary approval of a settlement "is at most a determination that there is what might be termed 'probable cause' to submit the proposal to class members and hold a full-scale hearing as to its fairness." In re Traffic Exec. Ass'n, 627 F.2d 631, 634 (2d Cir. 1980) (citing MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 1.46 at 55 n.10 (1977)). At this stage, the Court must only "make a preliminary determination on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement terms." MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 21.632 at 321 (4th ed. 2004).

The Settlement provides for the following benefits to class members: (1) the extension of warranty terms,*fn2 Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.2; (2) the establishment of "a dedicated team of technical representatives" to diagnose problems and arrange for repairs of malfunctioning optical blocks for all class members, Id. ¶ 4.3.2; (3) payments of cash to class members in the event that shipment of a replacement optical block is delayed for longer than fourteen days or in the event that class members should require more than one optical block repair during the warranty or warranty extension, Id. ¶ 4.3.3;*fn3 (4) reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the repair of any optical block prior to the termination date of the warranty, as extended, for each model, Id. ¶ 4.4; (5) a full refund of the payments for extended service plans purchased for those class members who choose to cancel their extended service plans, Id. ¶ 4.5; and (6) reimbursement, for class members who, prior to the effective date of the Settlement, had multiple optical block repairs and paid money to Sony for an upgrade to a different XBR2, A2000, A2020, or A3000 SXRD television. Id. ¶ 4.6. Additionally, Sony has agreed to bear all costs of settlement administration. Id. ¶ 4.7. In exchange, the class members who do not opt out of the class will release the Defendants from liability relating in any way to picture quality and optical blocks in the televisions or color anomalies in the picture display, such as green blobs, yellow stains, yellow haze, yellow lines, a softer and washed out picture, lack of color uniformity, poorer rendition of dark colors, "blotchy" rendition of the color black, problems with gray scale and convergence problems, in televisions covered by the purported class action. Id. ¶ 5.1. The agreement provides that the Defendants will pay class counsel $625,000, or whatever lower amount is awarded by the Court. Id. ¶ 6.1.

While the counsel for the Meserole plaintiffs have made many insinuations and statements about the inadequacy or inappropriateness of counsel for plaintiff Cardenas, they have pointed to no evidence or documentation showing that the negotiations between the Defendants and counsel for plaintiff Cardenas were collusive. Indeed, at the hearing held on April 23, 2010, counsel for plaintiff Cardenas represented: (1) that his law firm became involved in this case when approached by Ms. Cardenas and her lawyer, Cornelius Dukelow of the Abington Intellectual Property Law Group, Transcript of Apr. 23, 2010 hearing ("Apr. 23 Tr."), at 10; (2) that the law firm had no contact with Sony before beginning settlement negotiations with counsel for Sony in "September or October" of 2009, Id. at 11; (3) that after consulting with plaintiff Cardenas and Mr. Dukelow, the firm began settlement negotiations with counsel for Sony, Id. at 12; (4) that the firm consulted with Dr. Sohail Dianat, a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology who is an electrical engineer, specializing in monitors and televisions, Id.; Letter from William Federman to the Court (May 10, 2010); (5) that the firm consulted with William Rubenstein, a professor of consumer law at Harvard Law School, Apr. 23 Tr. at 13; Letter from William Federman to the Court (May 10, 2010); (6) that negotiations lasted six months, and that there was extensive "back and forth" over the terms of the settlement, Apr. 23 Tr. at 15; and (7) that the firm engaged in extensive confirmatory discovery, including seven transcribed interviews, two depositions, and 19,000 pages of documents reviewed, Defendants' Mem. of Law, at 19. On the record before the Court, there is no evidence or documentation that contradicts this account of the negotiations. The Court therefore finds, as a preliminary matter, that the negotiations were not collusive and were conducted at arms length.

As to whether the Settlement, as written, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, counsel for the Meserole plaintiffs have raised many objections. Many of these objections are more properly raised at a fairness hearing, given the limited nature of a court's review during preliminary approval. The warranty extensions should result in many of the original warranties of the optical blocks of two years having been doubled in length. See Notice of Settlement, 3-4. The cash payments are not insignificant, and they provide some assurance that these customers who have problems with multiple optical blocks malfunctioning will not be with no recourse. Additionally, the Settlement will refund any payments made for repairs prior to the termination date of the extended warranty and will refund, upon request, the purchase price of the extended purchase plans. This refund is important to consumers because Sony's extensions of the limited warranty extended the length of the warranty past the length of many of the extended service plans purchased by consumers. These benefits appear to address many of the concerns of consumers and are not insubstantial. The Court also notes that, because no party has introduced evidence as to the depreciated value of high definition televisions after the period of their limited warranty, it is impossible on this record to compare the refunds offered to the depreciated value of each model of television affected. Many of the class members' televisions are three to four years old. Moreover, no party has introduced evidence showing the percentage of optical blocks that fail over a fixed period of time for the various models that make up this class. These, however, are issues that are properly raised at the fairness hearing, rather than at this preliminary stage.

Therefore, the Court concludes that preliminary approval of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.