Plaintiffs Urge Denial of Samsung's ‘Legally and Factually Infirm’ Motion to Dismiss

Samsung’s Aug. 11 motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ July 14 first amended consolidated complaint in the multidistrict litigation arising from the 2022 data breach, and the memorandum in law in support of that motion, “are legally and factually infirm,” and the motion should be denied, said the plaintiffs’ opposition Friday (docket 1:23-md-03055) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.

Samsung’s motion to dismiss “largely ignores” the plaintiffs’ allegations, “which sufficiently allege harms resulting from Samsung’s negligence and omissions and exceed the necessary pleading standard,” said the plaintiffs’ opposition. “It also attempts to introduce its own version of the facts,” it said. Samsung’s “conclusory declaration” that the plaintiffs’ injuries couldn’t possibly have been caused by the data breach isn’t only false, it’s also “an improper attempt to litigate causation” on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, it said.

The plaintiffs allege the data breach involved their personally identifiable information, including their names, emails, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, payment card information, demographic information and geolocation data, said their opposition. These “classic” data breach components “plausibly lead to injury,” it said. The plaintiffs “have in fact pleaded dozens of injuries” caused by the data breach, it said.

Samsung’s insistence that certain categories of information weren’t compromised “is contrary to the facts directly alleged,” including the nature of the injuries themselves, said the opposition. “If anything, these fact disputes highlight why 12(b)(6) dismissal would be improper,” it said.

Samsung’s motion to dismiss “fails for other reasons as well,” said the plaintiffs’ opposition. The plaintiffs plead numerous facts supporting their theories of damages, “all of which are cognizable,” it said. Their tort claims, including negligence, negligence per se and breach of confidence, “are all properly stated under their bedrock common law elements,” it said. The court shouldn’t “prematurely delve into individual state-level intricacies before discovery and a proper choice of law analysis,” it said.

The plaintiffs’ alternative claim for unjust enrichment is proper “because the benefit they conferred on Samsung was possession of their PII, regardless of where they purchased Samsung goods,” said the opposition. The plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim is, in fact, a cause of action, “despite what Samsung argues,” it said. The plaintiffs’ statutory claims “are each properly pleaded,” it said. The “endless appendices of cases” that Samsung attaches to its motion to dismiss “are often cited out of context and misleadingly, and upon scrutiny, do nothing to help its case,” it said.

The plaintiffs plausibly state claims for relief, “even if Samsung, relying on its own version of events, disagrees,” said the opposition. When the plaintiffs’ allegations “are properly credited, as they must be at this stage,” Samsung’s legal arguments fail, and the motion “should be denied in its entirety,” it said. If any portion of the motion to dismiss is granted, “it should be without prejudice and with leave to amend,” it said.