Wasn't that just speculation on Consumer report's part? We don't know if Samsung contacted CPSC before instigating their own recall and trying to mitigate damage before CPSC acted.
Regardless of when Samsung involved the CPSC, Samsung should have immediately warned people not to use a potentially dangerous phone. That should have been the first step. Had such a warning been issued and people heeded the warning, that should have ended further reports of fires.
Instead Samsung's first step was to issue a recall. It was nearly a week after that recall notice that Samsung finally told people not to use the phone.
Sure, not everyone would have heeded the dont use warning (many still won't ), but it might have gotten Samsung off the hook for damages that occurred after that warning. The plaintiff, however, might argue that they had little choice but to risk using his phone, because Samsung was so slow in supplying a replacement. Even now, most people won't have a chance to get a replacement until September 21st.
BTW, Consumer Reports did not just speculate that Samsung failed to file with the CPSC, before recalling the phones. They would have had no reason to voice a concern without first checking with the CPSC with whom they have a working relationship.