Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Angel Reyes Blog

Litigation

: Angel Reyes Blog

Hitachi Class Action Lawsuit Filed by HORP&B

By Angel L. Reyes, III

Partner Eric D. Pearson and Attorney John W. Pate, with my law firm Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei, have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff Anthony Partida and others against Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronics Devices (USA), Inc., and Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc., subsidiaries of Tokyo-based Hitachi, Ltd., for defects in their LCD rear projection televisions with the model #50V500A.  In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Hitachi has known of the defects since early 2005, yet continued to manufacture, sell, and advertise these televisions as superior to competing models even after numerous consumer complaints of “green blobs, red bloom, green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies” that rendered these expensive, high-definition televisions useless. 

  

According to Eric Pearson, “Hitachi has been more than willing to take people’s money for these TV sets and they should be more than willing to fix them. In some cases, people paid $3,500 or more for these TVs.  You can’t take that kind of money and deliver a defective product.”

 

If you have purchased a Hitachi Model #50V500A LCD television with any visual defects, please email Angel@ReyesLaw.com regarding your eligibility for participation as a plaintiff in the following lawsuit:

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE  

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS  

DALLAS DIVISION 

CASE #8-008011513-ND

 

ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 

ANTHONY PARTIDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

 

VS.    

 

HITACHI AMERICA, LTD., 

HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC., 

and HITACHI HOME ELECTRONICS 

(AMERICA), INC. 

Defendants.

 

Anthony Partida, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, makes the following allegations and claims for his complaint against Hitachi America, Ltd, Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. and Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. The following allegations are made upon information and belief, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to plaintiff, which are made upon knowledge.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

1.       This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the Class exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, and there is diversity of citizenship between proposed class members and defendants.

 

2.       Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). All defendants conduct substantial business in this District, including conduct directed at members of the Class, including the promotion, sale, and marketing of their products, sufficient to render all of them within the jurisdiction of this Court. The events and conduct giving rise to the violations of law in this action constitute interstate commerce, and a significant portion thereof occurred in this District.

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 

3.       This class action is brought by plaintiff seeking damages and equitable relief on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the United States who have purchased Hitachi LCD Rear Projection Televisions (the "Televisions"), with Hitachi model number 50V500A. Plaintiff alleges that the Televisions possess a characteristic and inherent defect (the "Defect"). The Defect causes green blobs, red "bloom," green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies to be displayed across the screens of the Televisions, severely interfering with the program display, and rendering the Televisions unsuitable for their principal purpose.

 

4.       As such, Hitachi has perpetuated a massive consumer fraud upon no fewer than tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers. Hitachi marketed these Televisions as high-end videophile devices, with a high definition picture far superior to that provided by a standard television, and these claims allowed Hitachi to command suggested retail prices for these units of $3500.00 or more. In fact however, the Defect contained in the Televisions, and the blobs, haze, lines and other color anomalies that it causes to appear across the screens, render them essentially useless.

 

PARTIES

 

5.       Plaintiff Anthony Partida purchased a Television containing the Defect and is a citizen and resident of Dallas, Texas.

 

6.       Defendant Hitachi America, Ltd. ("Hitachi America") is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 50 Prospect Ave., Tarrytown, New York. During the time period covered by this Complaint, Hitachi America sold and distributed Televisions throughout the

 

United States. This Defendant may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Prentice Hall Corporation System, 14 Centre Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6302.

 

7.       Defendant Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. ("Hitachi Electronic Devices") is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 2000 Sierra Point Parkway, Brisbane, CA 94005. During the time period covered by this complaint, Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. manufactured, sold and distributed Televisions throughout the United States. This Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701.

 

8.       Defendant Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. ("Hitachi Home Electronics") is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 900 Hitachi Way, Chula Vista, California. During the time period covered by this complaint, Hitachi Home Electronics manufactured, sold and distributed Televisions throughout the United States. This Defendant may be served with process through its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, 818 W. 7th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3407.

 

9.       Defendants Hitachi America, Hitachi Electronic Devices and Hitachi Home Electronics are referred to collectively in this. Complaint as "Hitachi" or the "Hitachi Defendants."

 

10.     Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each of the defendants was the agent, servant, representative successor, successor in interests and employee of the remaining co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, each was acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment and with the ratification and authorization of its respective principals.

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

11.     HDTV refers to high definition television, a method of portraying television images in high resolution, with a high degree of picture detail and accuracy. As such, HDTV televisions command prices several times higher than those for common standard definition television sets. Consumers purchasing HDTV televisions therefore pay a significant premium for the ability to enjoy the high quality picture such television sets offer.

 

12.     Hitachi offers its Televisions to capitalize on this market, offering high definition resolution and large screens to consumers desiring the best video experience available. Hitachi's marketing materials represent that 50V500A brings LCD TV to "remarkable levels of picture quality" designed to deliver an "incredible LCD viewing experience." These claims have allowed Hitachi to command premium prices for these Televisions, which it has successfully marketed as suitable for the most discerning videophiles seeking accurate color reproduction at the highest resolutions and fidelity possible.

 

13.     Consumer's experiences with these Televisions, however, have been completely contrary to what was explicitly represented by Hitachi. Consumers have been dismayed to find that the Televisions display not the clear, color accurate picture which they have paid so dearly for, but rather display green blobs, red "bloom", green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies in various parts of the viewing screen over the displayed program. These color defects greatly interfere with the viewing of the video program, and render the Televisions unsuitable for their intended purpose.

 

14.     The green blobs, red "bloom," green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies are believed to be caused by a condition in the Televisions' "light engine" and related componentry which causes the unwanted coloration to be produced on the screen. The light engine is the video component that causes the video signal to be displayed as a picture on the viewing screen. The defect in the light engine and related components in the Televisions generate the offending green blobs, red "bloom", green haze, yellow lines and other color anomalies.

 

15.     To date, despite persistent consumer demands, Hitachi has been unable or unwilling to develop or offer consumers any permanent fix for the Defect. Instead, Hitachi has refused to repair the Defect or, (in some cases) offered to replace the light engine with identical units containing – but not yet manifesting – the Defect, but has done nothing to correct the underlying cause of the Defect. As a result, although the new light engines serve as a temporary "band-aid" solution, the underlying Defect remains, and will cause the green blobs, red "bloom," green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies to reappear anywhere from several weeks to several months after installation, depending on usage.

 

16.     Hitachi has known about the Defect contained in the Televisions since no later than early 2005, and likely earlier. Despite this fact, Hitachi has continued to misrepresent to consumers that the Televisions provide excellent video quality and has omitted to disclose to consumers the existence of the Defect – none of whom would have purchased the Televisions had they known of this material fact.

 

17.     As a result of Hitachi's actions, all consumers who have purchased the Televisions have been damaged.

 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

 

18.     Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other members of the class consisting of all purchasers of the Televisions in the United States (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are defendants herein, and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with defendants, including, without limitation, persons who are directors of Hitachi.

 

19.     The Class is composed of no fewer than tens of thousands of persons nationwide and is sufficiently numerous for class treatment. The joinder of all Class members individually in one action would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in a class action will provide substantial benefits to the parties and the Court.

 

20.     Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and plaintiff has no interests adverse to the interest of the other members of the Class.

 

21.     This dispute raises questions of law and fact that are common to all Class members. Those common questions predominate over questions that arise on an individual basis for Class members. The common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:

 

(a)     Whether Hitachi's representations, omissions, and conduct regarding the Televisions were misleading or false;

 

(b)     Whether Hitachi's representations and conduct were likely to deceive consumers into believing that the Television operated properly;

 

(c)     To the extent State laws prohibiting consumer deception are applicable, whether Hitachi violated the respective laws of those States;

 

(d)     When Hitachi initiated the deceptive marketing campaign;

 

(e)     Whether Hitachi undertook a course of conduct to hide the existence of the Defect from the members of the Class;

 

(f)      Whether the Defect constitutes a manufacturing or design defect;

 

(g)     Whether the Defect constitutes a breach of Hitachi's warranties;

 

(h)     Whether the members of the Class have been injured by Hitachi's conduct;

 

(i)      Whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and are entitled to restitution as a result of Hitachi's wrongdoing and, if so, what is the proper measure and appropriate formula to be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and

 

(j)      Whether the members of the Class are entitled to injunctive relief.

 

22.     Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of class action litigation.

 

23.     A class action is superior to other methods of the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.

 

24.     A class action will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. Class treatment also will permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein. If a Class or general public action is not permitted, Class members will continue to suffer losses and Hitachi's misconduct will continue without proper remedy.

 

25.     Hitachi has acted and refused to act on grounds general applicable to the entire Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

 

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Under State Laws

 

(Against All Defendants)

 

26.     Plaintiff fully incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs 1 through 3 as though fully set forth herein.

 

27.     To the extent that these laws are applicable to Hitachi's conduct in this matter, the practices discussed above constitute unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or business practices in violation of the state consumer protection statutes listed in 31-75.

 

28.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

 

29.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471, et seq.

 

30.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522, et seq.

 

31.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Ark. Code § 4-88-101, et seq.

 

32.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

 

33.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105, et seq.

 

34.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, et seq.

 

35.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 6 Del. Code. § 2511, et seq.

 

36.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq.

 

37.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.

 

38.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Ga. Stat. § 10-1-392, et seq.

 

39.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480, et seq.

 

40.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Idaho Code § 48-601, et seq.

 

41.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 815 ILCS § 505, et seq.

 

42.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Kan. Stat. § 50-623, et seq.

 

43.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.110, et seq.

 

44.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401, et seq.

 

45.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 5 Me. Rev. Stat. § 207, et seq.

 

46.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Md. Corn. Law Code § 13-101, et seq.

 

47.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A, et seq.

 

48.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Minn. Stat. § 8.31, et seq.

 

49.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Vernon's Missouri Stat. § 407.010, et seq.

 

50.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mont. Code § 30-14-101, et seq.

 

51.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-0601, et seq.

 

52.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0903, et seq.

 

53.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A:1, et seq.

 

54.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:8-1, et seq.

 

55.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.M. Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq.

 

56.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

 

57.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.

 

58.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.D. Cent. CODE § 51-15-01, et seq.

 

59.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Ohio Rev. Stat. § 1345.01, et seq.

 

60.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Okla. Stat. 15 § 751, et seq.

 

61.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605, et seq.

 

62.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1, et seq.

 

63.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of R. I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1, et seq.

 

64.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of S.C. Code Laws § 39-5-10, et seq.

 

65.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of S.D. Code Laws § 37-24-1, et seq.

 

66.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Tenn. Code § 47-18-101, et seq.

 

67.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41, et seq.

 

68.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Utah Code § 13-11-1, et seq.

 

69.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vt. § 2451, et seq.

 

70.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Va. Code § 59-1-196, et seq.

 

71.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Wash Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq.

 

72.     Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of West Virginia Code § 46A-6-101, et seq.

 

73.     Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured by reason of Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts and practices in regard to their manufacturing, marketing, sale, and warranty practices relating to the defective Televisions. These injuries are of the type that the above State consumer protection statutes were designed to prevent, and are the direct result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct.

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

 

Breach of Express Warranty

 

(Against All Defendants)

 

74.     Each of the above allegations is incorporated herein.

 

75.     Hitachi's affirmations of fact and/or promises relating to the Televisions creates express warranties that the products purchased by Plaintiff and the Class would operate properly and without defects, and would therefore portray video without extraneous artifacts which would impair the viewing of the video program.

 

76.     Alternatively, Hitachi's descriptions of the Televisions became part of the bases of the bargains between consumers and Hitachi, creating express warranties that the product purchased by Plaintiff and the Class would conform to Hitachi's representations.

 

77.     In fact, the products purchased by the Plaintiff did not so conform.

 

78.     As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages. THIRD

 

CAUSE OF ACTION

 

Violation of Magnum-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.

 

(Against All Defendants)

 

79.     Each of the above allegations is incorporated herein.

 

80.     Plaintiff and the Class are consumers as defined in 15. U.S.C. § 2301(3).

 

81.     Defendants are suppliers and warrantors as defined in 15. U.S.C. § 2301(4)(5).

 

82.     The Televisions are consumer products as defined in 15. U.S.C. § 2301(6).

 

83.     By reason of Hitachi's breach of its express written warranties stating that the Televisions would operate properly, were free from material defects, and that it would repair or replace any such defects, Defendants have violated the statutory rights due the Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., thereby damaging Plaintiff and the Class.

 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

 

Breach of Implied Warranty

 

(Against All Defendants)

 

84.     Each of the above allegations is incorporated herein.

 

85.     Hitachi's affirmations of fact and/or promises relating to the Televisions created implied warranties that the products purchased by Plaintiff and the Class would operate properly and without defects, and would therefore portray video without extraneous artifacts that would impair the viewing of the video program.

 

86.     Alternatively, Hitachi's descriptions of the Televisions became part of the bases of the bargains between consumers and Hitachi, creating implied warranties that the product purchased by Plaintiff and the Class would conform to Hitachi's representations.

 

87.     In fact, the products purchased by Plaintiff and the Class did not so conform.

 

88.     As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages.

 

Full post as published by Angel Reyes Blog on August 28, 2008 (boomark / email).