Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Norcia (P) entered a Verizon Wireless store to purchase a Samsung Galaxy S4 phone. P paid for the phone and a Verizon Wireless employee provided a receipt entitled 'Customer Agreement' followed by the name and address of the Verizon Wireless store. The receipt stated the order location, P's mobile number, the product identification number, and the contract end date. Under the heading 'Items,' the receipt stated 'WAR6002 1 YR. MFG. WARRANTY.' Under the heading 'Agreement,' the receipt included three provisions, including a statement (in all capital letters): I agree to the current Verizon Wireless Customer Agreement, including the calling plan, (with extended limited warranty/service contract, if applicable), and other terms and conditions for services and selected features I have agreed to purchase as reflected on the receipt, and which have been presented to me by the sales representative and which I had the opportunity to review. The receipt also stated (in all capital letters): 'I understand that I am agreeing to . . . settlement of disputes by arbitration and other means instead of jury trials, and other important terms in the Customer Agreement.' The Customer Agreement did not reference D or any other party. Norcia signed the Customer Agreement, and Verizon Wireless emailed him a copy. After signing the Customer Agreement, P and a Verizon Wireless employee took the phone, still in its sealed Samsung box, to a table. The front of the product box stated 'Samsung Galaxy S4.' The back of the box stated: 'Package Contains . . . Product Safety & Warranty Brochure.' The Verizon Wireless employee opened the box, unpacked the phone and materials, and helped P transfer his contacts from his old phone to the new phone. Norcia took the phone, the phone charger, and the headphones with him as he left the store, but he declined the offer by the Verizon Wireless employee to take the box and the rest of its contents. The box contained a 'Product Safety & Warranty Information' brochure of 101-pages. Section 1 contained a wide range of health and safety information, while Section 2 contained D's 'Standard Limited Warranty' and 'End User License Agreement for Software.' The Standard Limited Warranty section explained the scope of D's express warranty and the procedure for obtaining warranty service, and the limits of d's liability, the warranty section included the following (in all capital letters): All disputes with D arising in any way from this limited warranty or the sale, condition or performance of the products shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, and not by a court or jury. Purchasers could opt out of the arbitration agreement by providing notice to D within 30 calendar days of purchase, either through email or by calling a toll-free telephone number. It also stated that opting out 'will not affect the coverage of the Limited Warranty in any way, and you will continue to enjoy the benefits of the Limited Warranty.' P did not opt out. In February 2014, P filed a class action complaint against D, alleging that D misrepresented the Galaxy S4's storage capacity and rigged the phone to operate at a higher speed when it was being tested. P sued under common law fraud and violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law. D moved to compel arbitration by invoking the arbitration provision in the Product Safety & Warranty Information Brochure. The court refused in that the receipt of the brochure did not form an agreement to arbitrate non-warranty claims. D appealed.