Judge Alsup, who earlier this year granted final approval of a settlement guaranteeing either a refund or a new device to a class of consumers who bought defective TVs from Samsung Electronics America Inc., rejected Monday a consumer's bid to sanction the electronics giant for failure to comply with the agreement.
"Life is too short," Judge Alsup said, denying the motion during a remote hearing Monday.
The judge estimated there to be fewer than six class members in the case altogether, and said the class member who brought the motion for sanctions had already received a full refund from Samsung.
"How can we possibly be in U.S. district court fighting over a used TV that probably is worth $32?" Judge Alsup asked. "Don't you realize how busy we are? And how oppressed we are with the pandemic? And how the work is stacking up?"
Samsung's counsel expressed sympathy for the judge and urged him to put an end to the case.
But class counsel, Paul S. Rothstein of the Law Offices of Paul S. Rothstein, argued Samsung is treating this litigation "as an ant they are going to stomp on."
Judge Alsup denied the sanctions bid, telling Rothstein the motion had rested on shaky evidence, but that the class should come forward if they are able to show a pattern of non-compliance.
The judge also rejected a motion by a consumer seeking to amend his individual claims against Samsung, saying it came too late and telling Rothstein "you sat on your hands."
"Motion denied. If you don't like it, please take it to the Ninth Circuit. That's what they're for, to correct my errors," Judge Alsup said.
Judge Alsup panned the original deal last year, taking issue with a provision that gave the electronics giant discretion to decide whether consumers can receive the exchange or refund, and with language that would have kept consumers that weren't involved in the litigation in the dark about the agreement.
In March, Judge Alsup granted final approval to the settlement, but turned his eye to the consumer side, taking aim at the nearly half-a-million-dollar purse heading to the class' legal team and representative.
While he greenlighted class counsel's $487,000 combined fee and expense request, he said he wasn't thrilled with the lack of documentation backing the expenses. Judge Alsup also slashed the $6,000 incentive payment requested by the class representative down to $500, calling that type of payout a "red flag."
During Monday's hearing, Judge Alsup took issue with Rothstein's interruptions, saying he ought to have held him in contempt of court.
"I've been patiently listening to you for about an hour, and when I finally get around to ruling, at least in this district, you don't interrupt the judge. And you did it twice," Judge Alsup said.
Rothstein apologized to the judge for the interruptions.
Following Monday's hearing, Rothstein told Law360 via email, "We respectfully disagree with the judge's decision. We mistakenly misstated the law of the Ninth Circuit and sent a letter of apology to Judge Alsup."
Representatives for Samsung did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The class is represented by Paul S. Rothstein and Kyla V. Alexander of the Law Offices of Paul S. Rothstein.
Samsung is represented by Michael J. Mueller and Thomas R. Waskom of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.
The case is Bronson et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al., case number 3:18-cv-02300, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Anne Cullen. Editing by Philip Shea.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
