Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`Patrick J. Perotti (Ohio Bar No. 0005481)
`Frank A. Bartela (Ohio Bar No. 0088128)
`DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
`60 South Park Place
`Painesville, OH 44077
`Telephone: (440) 352-3391
`Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
`Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
`fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
`Appearance pro hac vice
`
`John A. Kithas (California Bar No. 64284)
`Christopher Land (California Bar No. 238261)
`LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. KITHAS
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 788-8100
`Facsimile: (415) 788-8001
`Email: john@kithas.com
`chris@kithas.com
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JAMES P. BRICKMAN, individually and as a
`representative of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR
`FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`SETTLEMENT
`
`The Honorable James Donato
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii
`
`Notice of Motion and Motion ........................................................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background Facts and Details of Settlement ................................................................ 3
`
`a. The history of the litigation ..................................................................................... 5
`
`b. Settlement Negotiations .......................................................................................... 6
`
`c. The relief provided to the Settlement Sub-Classes ................................................. 7
`
`d. The Initial Notice Plan ..............................................................................................
`
`e. The Reminder Campaign and increase in claims made by Settlement Sub-Class
`
`Members .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`III. Argument .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`a. Final approval of the settlement is appropriate ..................................................... 10
`
`1. Strength of Plaintiffs’ case and the risk, expense, complexity, and
`
`likely duration of further litigation, including risk of maintaining class
`
`action status .................................................................................................. 11
`
`2. The amount offered in settlement ................................................................. 13
`
`3. Extent of discovery completed and the stage of proceedings ....................... 14
`
`4. The experience and views of counsel ........................................................... 16
`
`5. The reaction of the Settlement Sub-Class Members has been positive ........ 17
`
`6. The Settlement Agreement is presumed fair because it is the product
`
`the product of good faith, informed, and arms-length negotiations
`
`after extensive fact and expert discovery ...................................................... 19
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Final certification of the Settlement Sub-Classes is warranted ................................... 20
`
`The objection filed by Wanda Cochran failed to comply with the requirements of the
`
`Settlement and should be stricken from the record ..................................................... 20
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Certificate of Service..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Bayat v. Bank of the West, No. C-13-2376, 2015 WL 1744342 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) .......... 13
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................. 11, 15
`
`Brickman, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD ............................................................. 3
`
`California v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-05874, 2015 WL 5168666 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015) ........ 10
`
`Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................. 10, 19
`
`Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................ 10
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................... 10
`
`Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663 (Cal. 2nd Dist. 2006) ............... 14
`
`Curtis–Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. C 06-3903, 2008 WL 4667090 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
`22, 2008) ........................................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-cv-02858, 2014 WL 1900682 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2014)
` .................................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., No C-11-01078 DMR, 2014 WL 1724891 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,
`2014) ........................................................................................................................................ 18. 19
`
`Garber v. Office of Comm’r of Baseball, No. 12-CV-03704 (VEC), 2017 WL 752183 (S.D.N.Y.,
`Feb. 27, 2017) ................................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., No. CV 08 1365, 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
` .................................................................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.1998) .................................................. 10, 11, 20
`
`In re Apple iPhone 4 Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 5:10-md-2188 RMW, 2012 WL 3283432 (N.D. Cal.
`Aug. 10, 2012) ............................................................................................................................... 19
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................... 19
`
`In re Cendant Corp., 264 F.3d 201 (3rd Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 11
`
`In re Linkedin User Privacy Litigation, 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ....................... 10, 12, 19
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litigation, No. 5:11-cv-00379, 2013 WL 1120801 (N.D. Cal. 2013)......... 19
`
`In re Omnivision Techns., Inc., 559 F.Supp.2d 1036 (N.D.Cal. 2008) .......................................... 16
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................ 11, 19
`
`In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 212 F.R.D. 231 (Del. 2002) ............................................. 11
`
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`Larsen v. Trader Joe's Company, No. 11-cv-05188, 2014 WL 3404531 (N.D.Cal. July 11, 2014)
` .................................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Left Coast Wrestling, LLC v. Dearborn Int’l LLC, No. 317CV00466LABNLS, 2018 WL 2328471
`(S.D. Cal. May 23, 2018) ............................................................................................................... 14
`
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................... 13, 15
`
`Lipuma v. American Express Company, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2005) .......................... 13
`
`Lucas v. White, 63 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .................................................................... 22
`
`Miller v. Ghiradelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-cv-04936, 2015 WL 758094 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20,
`2015) .............................................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Moore v. Verizon Commc’n Inc., No. C 09-1823 SBA, 2013 WL 4610764 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28,
`2013) .............................................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 534 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .............. 13, 15
`
`New York v. Reebok Int’l Ltd., 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) aff’d, 96 F.3d 44 (2nd Cir. 1996)
` .................................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`Noll v. eBay, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................... 11, 12
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com’n of City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615 (9th
`Cir. 1982) ....................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356 (E.D.Cal. 2014) ................................................................. 15
`
`Partnership Co. v. Atlantic Acquisition Ltd. P'ship, 100 F.3d 1041 (1st Cir.1996) ...................... 15
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................... 11, 12, 16, 20
`
`Rodriguez v. West Pubbl’g Corp., No. CV05-3222 R(MCx), 2007 WL 2827379 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`10, 2007) ........................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................... 12
`
`Statutes
`
`California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. ................................ 5
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. ..................................................... 5
`Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. .......................... 5
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. .............................................................. 5
`Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. ..... 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B) .................................................................................................................. 4
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) .......................................................................................................................... 12
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) ................................................................................................................. 6, 19
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 6, 2020 at 10:00 AM, or as soon as the matter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may be heard, in Courtroom 11, before the Honorable James Donato, Plaintiffs shall and hereby do
`
`move the Court for an Order:
`
`1. Of final approval of the settlement of this class action as set forth in the class action
`
`Stipulation of Settlement dated October 29, 2018 (“Settlement Agreement”).
`
`2. Final certification, for settlement purposes only, of the following Settlement Sub-Classes:
`
`all persons who purchased and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra during the
`
`indicated time period in: California (2009 – October 27, 2014); Florida (2009 – October 27,
`
`2014); New York (March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Pennsylvania (March 26, 2012 –
`
`October 27, 2014); Ohio (March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Michigan (March 26, 2012
`
`– October 27, 2014); New Jersey (March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Illinois (March 26,
`
`2013 – October 27, 2014); Missouri (March 26, 2013 – October 27, 2014); Texas (March
`
`26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); Georgia (March 26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); North
`
`Carolina (March 26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); and Washington (March 26, 2014 – October
`
`27, 2014).
`
`3. Entry of final judgment, order to pay valid claims and settlement costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`After three years of litigation and shortly before trial was set to begin, the Plaintiffs and
`
`Defendant, Fitbit, (herein “Parties”) reached the proposed settlement of this class action (herein
`
`“Settlement”). This Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, conditionally certified
`
`the Settlement Sub-Classes, and set a final approval hearing for August 1, 2019. The Parties then
`
`initiated notice to the Settlement Sub-Class Members (the “Initial Notice Plan”) and submitted the
`
`previous Motion for Final Approval on July 25, 2019, prior to the August 1, 2019, final approval
`
`hearing. Dkt. No. 292.
`
`After the August 1, 2019, final approval hearing, the Parties conferred and devised a
`
`reminder notice plan (herein “Reminder Campaign”) pursuant to the Court’s instructions. Dkt. Nos.
`
`306 and 307. The Reminder Campaign included one round of reminder direct mail postcards sent
`
`to Settlement Sub-Class Members for which there was no e-mail address, three rounds of reminder
`
`e-mail messages, and over 3.8 million Facebook advertisements targeted directly to the Settlement
`
`Sub-Class Members. See Declaration of Deborah McComb, KCC, dated January 13, 2020, at ¶¶
`
`13-19, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. To ensure that the Reminder Campaign provided the broadest
`
`possible reach, Class Counsel voluntarily agreed to pay for two rounds of the e-mail reminders and
`
`over half of the targeted Facebook advertisements. See Declaration of Patrick J. Perotti, dated
`
`January 13, 2020, at ¶ 44, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. After the Reminder Campaign was approved
`
`by the Court, the campaign began on and included a 60 day claims period, which closed on
`
`December 22, 2019.
`
`In total, the Reminder Campaign increased the claims submitted by Settlement Sub-Class
`
`Members by over 80,000 claims to a total of 141,490 claims, which totals $1,768,625 in monetary
`
`relief to be paid directly to the Settlement Sub-Class Members. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶ 22. The
`
`success of the Initial Notice Plan and the Reminder Campaign and positive reaction by the
`
`Settlement Sub-Class Members are fully outlined in the below chart which tracks the notice
`
`provided, opt-outs, and claims made by the Settlement Sub-Class Members during both the Initial
`
`Notice Plan and the Reminder Campaign.
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`By the Numbers: Initial Notice Plan, Reminder Campaign, and Claims1
`Initial Notice
`Reminder Campaign
`Total
`202,491
`22,115
`224,606
`
`
`Notices Mailed
`Notices Returned as
`Undeliverable
`Undeliverable
`Notices Re-Mailed
`Undeliverable
`Notices Returned
`with Forwarding
`Address and Re-
`Mailed
`Notices E-mailed
`Banner
`Advertisements on
`Yahoo! and Google
`Platforms
`0
`Facebook Ads
`212
`Timely Opt-Outs
`Objections2
`0
`60,783
`Amount of Claims
`Total Monetary Value of Claims
`
`15,807
`
`6,702
`
`1,668
`
`1,350,472
`
`111,495,038
`
`2,447
`
`0
`
`0
`
`18,254
`
`6,702
`
`1,668
`
`3,802,739
`
`5,153,211
`
`0
`
`111,495,038
`
`3,844,691
`0
`0
`80,707
`
`3,844,691
`212
`0
`141,490
`$1,768,625
`
`Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶¶ 7-10, 12-18, 21-23.
`
`Plaintiffs submit this unopposed Amended Motion for Final Approval to request that the
`
`Court grant final approval of the Settlement, grant final certification of the Settlement Sub-Classes,
`
`authorize the payment of all valid claims made by the Settlement Sub-Class Members, and
`
`authorize the payment of all settlement administration costs.
`
`The Settlement provides every Settlement Sub-Class Member who submitted a timely and
`
`valid claim a cash payment of $12.50. The Settlement covers the same California and Florida state
`
`classes previously certified by this Court. Dkt. No. 194. In addition, by agreement of the Parties,
`
`the Settlement also included those who purchased the Fitbit Devices in 11 other states during the
`
`
`1 As required by the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements for the Northern District of
`California, this chart identifies, “the number of undeliverable class notices and claim packets, the
`number of class members who submitted valid claims, the number of class members who elected
`to opt out of the class, and the number of class members who objected to or commented on the
`settlement.” See Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, dated December 5, 2018,
`available
`at
`https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-
`settlements/ (last viewed Jan. 7, 2020).
`2 No objections were made to the settlement. However, there was a single objection made to Class
`Counsel’s fee request, which is discussed below at Section V.
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`class period. Specifically, the Settlement Sub-Classes, as defined in the Settlement, include: all
`
`persons who purchased and registered online, a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra during the indicated time
`
`period in: California (2009 – October 27, 2014); Florida (2009 – October 27, 2014); New York
`
`(March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Pennsylvania (March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Ohio
`
`(March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Michigan (March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); New Jersey
`
`(March 26, 2012 – October 27, 2014); Illinois (March 26, 2013 – October 27, 2014); Missouri
`
`(March 26, 2013 – October 27, 2014); Texas (March 26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); Georgia (March
`
`26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); North Carolina (March 26, 2014 – October 27, 2014); and
`
`Washington (March 26, 2014 – October 27, 2014).
`
`The notice provided by the Initial Notice Plan and the Reminder Campaign meets the
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) most “practicable under the circumstances” standard.
`
`The notice targeted Settlement Sub-Class Members through multiple rounds of direct e-mail
`
`notification, direct mail notification, publication notice, internet banner advertisements, targeted
`
`Facebook advertisements, and the settlement website.
`
`The Settlement meets the standard for final approval. The Court should enter the proposed
`
`final approval order that: (1) finally approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) grants
`
`final certification of the Settlement Sub-Classes for settlement purposes; (3) requires that Fitbit pay
`
`all settlement costs including claims to Settlement Sub-Class Members, settlement administration
`
`costs, and notice costs; and (4) enters a final judgment in this matter.3
`
`II.
`
`Background Facts and Details of Settlement
`
`a. The history of the litigation.4
`
`On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff James P. Brickman filed a class action complaint against Fitbit
`
`in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
`
`titled Brickman, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-2077-JD (the “Action”). On December 22,
`
`
`3 Plaintiffs’ previously submitted their request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as well as
`incentive compensation for the named Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 282. This motion was heard by the Court
`during the initial final approval hearing on August 1, 2019.
`4 The history of the litigation has been extensively briefed in the Amended Motion for Preliminary
`Approval and Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards. Dkt. Nos.
`263, 383.
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`2015, Plaintiff Brickman, together with Plaintiff Margaret Clingman, filed the operative Fourth
`
`Amended Complaint (the “4AC” or “Complaint”). The Complaint alleged that Fitbit’s advertising
`
`of the sleep-tracking feature on the Devices was false or misleading and that the Devices do not
`
`track sleep as advertised. The Complaint alleged the following causes of action: (1) Violations of
`
`California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) (4AC ¶¶
`
`70-98); (2) Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
`
`(“CLRA”) (id. ¶¶ 104-109); (3) Violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
`
`(“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (id. ¶¶ 134-140); (4) Common Law Fraud (id. ¶¶ 141-
`
`109); (5) Negligent Misrepresentation (id. ¶¶ 149-154); and (6) Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract
`
`(id. ¶¶ 155-164). The Complaint also included causes of action for violation of California’s False
`
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; violation of the Magnuson-Moss
`
`Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.; and breach of implied warranties; however, Plaintiffs
`
`James P. Brickman and Margaret Clingman subsequently abandoned those claims. The Complaint
`
`sought damages, restitution, punitive damages, and fees and costs.
`
`On January 8, 2016, Fitbit filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted.5 (Dkt. No. 63.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion and on July 15, 2016,
`
`the Court issued an Order denying the motion. (Dkt. No. 84.)
`
`Fitbit answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint on July 29, 2016, and denied the allegations therein
`
`and alleged various affirmative defenses. The parties conducted extensive fact and merits discovery
`
`which included the exchange of written discovery in the form of interrogatories, requests for
`
`admission, and requests for production. Ex. 1, Perotti Decl. at ¶ 4. Class Counsel reviewed over
`
`149,000 pages of discovery documents produced by Fitbit during the course of written discovery.
`
`Ex. 1, Perotti Decl. at ¶¶ 11-12. Class Counsel deposed three of Fitbit’s representatives designated
`
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), while counsel for Defendant deposed Plaintiffs
`
`Clingman and Brickman. Ex. 1, Perotti Decl. at ¶¶ 13-16. The parties’ consulted and obtained
`
`
`5 Fitbit also filed motions to dismiss against Plaintiffs’ initial complaint (Dkt. No. 21) and Plaintiffs’
`First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 34).
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`experts on the myriad issued presented by the suit and submitted expert reports from nine separate
`
`experts, each of whom were deposed.
`
`
`
`On January 31, 2017, after the substantial discovery outlined above, Plaintiffs moved the
`
`Court for certification of Florida and California classes. Subsequently, on April 20, 2017, Fitbit
`
`filed its motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2017, the Court granted the motion for
`
`class certification of Plaintiffs James P. Brickman and Margaret Clingman, except as to the Florida
`
`common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. The Court certified the following
`
`classes (the “Certified Classes”):
`
`1. All California residents who have purchased and registered
`
`online a Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra in the State of California
`
`between 2009 and October 27, 2014.
`
`2. All Florida residents who have purchased and registered online a
`
`Fitbit Flex, One, or Ultra in the State of Florida between 2009
`
`and October 27, 2014.
`
`On December 8, 2017, the Court denied Fitbit’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 195.)
`
`
`
`After the Court’s orders on class certification and summary judgment, the parties continued
`
`to prepare for trial in this matter. To that end, the parties met and conferred multiple times over the
`
`course of several months to prepare the joint materials required by this Court’s standing order on
`
`civil jury trials. On March 22, 2018, the parties filed: (1) trial briefs; (2) joint pre-trial statement;
`
`(3) motions in limine; (4) joint exhibit list and objections; (5) joint witness list and objections; (6)
`
`joint proposed voir dire questions and objections; (7) joint proposed jury instructions and
`
`objections; and (8) joint proposed verdict forms and objections.
`
`b. Settlement Negotiations
`
`Throughout the litigation, efforts were made by the parties to explore potential settlement.
`
`Several mediations were conducted, culminating in a settlement after the Court had denied
`
`summary judgment, granted class certification, and extensive trial preparation occurred.
`
`The proposed settlement was reached following significant, and hard fought, litigation as is
`
`outlined above. During the course of this litigation, the parties entered into several rounds of arms-
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`length negotiations which included the help of expert mediators. After the final mediation, before
`
`the Hon. John Leo Wagner (Ret.) of Judicate West, the parties continued to discuss settlement,
`
`having benefitted from the guidance and direction of the mediator. On March 6, 2018, the parties
`
`held a meeting in the San Francisco office of Morrison Forester to further discuss settlement. Ex.
`
`1, Perotti Decl. at ¶ 28. After this meeting, the parties continued to discuss settlement in this matter,
`
`which led to the terms of the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, and which are
`
`summarized in this motion. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Principle and
`
`Stipulation and Proposed Order to Vacate Upcoming Dates and Deadlines on March 28, 2018. Dkt.
`
`No. 244.
`
`c. The relief provided to the Settlement Sub-Classes.
`
`The Settlement provided relief to nine Settlement Sub-Classes which are comprised of
`
`Settlement Sub-Class Members in thirteen different states (“Settlement States”). The Court
`
`originally certified classes of consumers in Florida and California. However, through the extensive
`
`arm’s-length negotiations outlined above, Settlement Sub-Class Members in eleven additional
`
`states were eligible for relief.
`
`Through the Settlement, Settlement Sub-Class Members were able to file a claim for a cash
`
`payment of $12.50 for each qualifying device that they purchased in the Settlement States during
`
`the class period. There is no limit on the number of claims that a class member can make, provided
`
`that each claim relates to a separate qualifying device purchased in a covered jurisdiction during
`
`the relevant time period. Dkt. No. 263-1.
`
`The amount paid to individual claimants is not dependent on the number of claims
`
`submitted, the cost of notice or administration, the amount paid in attorneys’ fees and costs, or any
`
`incentive compensation paid to the named class representatives. Instead, each Settlement Sub-Class
`
`Member who made a valid and timely claim will be paid $12.50 in cash for each and every
`
`qualifying Fitbit device purchased during the class period, regardless of any of those other factors.
`
`This outcome is excellent for the members of the Settlement Sub-Classes, since, based on Plaintiffs’
`
`analysis, the most they could recover at trial for out of pocket loss was approximately $15. Ex. 1,
`
`Perotti Decl. at ¶¶ 66-67.
`
`UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
`Case No. 3:15-cv-2077
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 309 Filed 01/13/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`d. The Initial Notice Plan.
`
`The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on December 17, 2018, which
`
`allowed the parties to distribute notice and Settlement Sub-Class Members to submit claims. Dkt.
`
`No. 275. The Settlement included a robust notice plan and a user-friendly claims process. The Initial
`
`Notice Plan provided direct notice via e-mail and regular mail as well as publication notice through
`
`two national magazines and internet advertisements. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶¶ 5 – 13. Direct
`
`notice, via U.S. Mail, was sent to 202,491 Settlement Sub-Class Members that purchased their
`
`device directly from Fitbit’s website and provided a mailing address. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶ 5.
`
`After the direct mail notice was sent out, KCC received 1,668 notices returned with a forwarding
`
`address. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶ 9. Those notices were immediately re-mailed to the new
`
`addresses. Id. KCC also received 15,807 direct mail notices returned by the USPS with
`
`undeliverable addresses. Ex. 2, McComb Decl., at ¶ 10. KCC performed address searches through
`
`various sources and was able to find updated addresses for 6,702 Settlement Sub-Class Members.
`
`Ex. 2, McComb Decl., at ¶ 10. Notice was re-mailed to these individuals after their address was
`
`updated. Id.
`
`Fitbit also provided to KCC, the Settlement Administrator, approximately 5,158,436 e-mail
`
`addresses associated with Fitbit devices. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶¶ 2-4. Those e-mail addresses
`
`were then reverse location searched to determine whether the individual holder of that e-mail
`
`address was in one of the Settlement States. Ex. 2, McComb Decl. at ¶ 3. KCC was able to reverse
`
`locate 1,146