Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`ALLAN STEYER (Bar No. 100318)
`JILL M. MANNING (Bar No. 178849)
`D. SCOTT MACRAE (Bar No. 104663)
`STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
` ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
`235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 424-3400
`Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
`asteyer@steyerlaw.com
`jmanning@steyerlaw.com
`smacrae@steyerlaw.com
`
`CLIFFORD H. PEARSON (Bar. No. 108523)
`DANIEL L. WARSHAW (Bar No. 185365)
`THOMAS J. NOLAN (Bar No. 66992)
`PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone: (818) 788-8300
`Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
`cpearson@pswlaw.com
`dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
`tnolan@pswlaw.com
`
`[Additional counsel list on signature page]
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`vs.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER
`Individually and on Behalf of All Others
`Similarly Situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`23
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`February 8, 2021
`Date:
`1:30 p.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 8
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 8, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`matter may be heard in the Courtroom of the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, United States District Court,
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113,
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`Plaintiffs Christina Grace and Ken Potter (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for the entry of an Order granting final approval of the
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”).
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`The grounds for this motion are that the proposed settlement is within the necessary range of
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`reasonableness to justify granting final approval pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`Settlement, the Declaration of Daniel L. Warshaw, the Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, the
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`presented at the hearing on this motion.
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`
`947352.1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims ........................................................................................................2
`
`Procedural History ......................................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT ..................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Mediation and Settlement ...........................................................................................4
`
`The Proposed Settlement Class ..................................................................................4
`
`Monetary Relief ..........................................................................................................5
`
`Narrowly Tailored Release .........................................................................................5
`
`Class Notice and the Cost of Settlement Administration ...........................................6
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`IV.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT .............7
`
`The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate .....................................................7
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case Compared to the Risk, Expense,
`Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation .................................8
`
`The Amount Offered in Settlement ..............................................................10
`
`The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial .......................12
`
`The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings .......12
`
`The Experience and Views of Counsel ........................................................13
`
`The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement.................15
`
`(a)
`
`The Sole Objector is a Disbarred California Attorney and
`Professional Objector Who is Not a Class Member .........................15
`
`7.
`
`The Settlement is Not the Product of Collusion ...........................................21
`
`B.
`
`The Settlement Class Satisfies Rule 23 and Should be Finally Certified ................22
`
`1.
`
`The Class Representatives and Class Counsel have Vigorously
`Represented the Class ...................................................................................23
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Class Representatives’ Interests are Aligned with and are Not
`Antagonistic to the Other Class Members’ Interests ....................................24
`
`The Settlement was Negotiated at Arm’s-Length ........................................24
`
`The Relief Provided for the Class is Adequate ............................................25
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`AIG, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc.,
`Nos. 07-2898, 09-2026, 2012 WL 651727 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2012) ...................................... 18
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................ 11, 14, 21
`
`In re Apple Sec. Litig.,
`No. 5:06-CV-05208-JF (HRL), 2011 WL 1877988 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2011) ..................... 18
`
`Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01788-JST, 2016 WL 344532 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) ..................................... 11
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 8, 21
`
`Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`3:11-CV-03082-LB, 2016 WL 631880 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016) ......................................... 16
`
`Castaneda v. Burger King Corp.,
`No. C 08-04262 WHA, 2010 WL 2735091 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2010) ................................... 20
`
`Caudle v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.,
`No. C 17-06874 WHA, 2019 WL 6841239 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) .................................. 11
`
`Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`214 F. Supp. 3d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................................... 17
`
`Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................... 2, 7, 8, 23
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Cobell v. Salazar,
`679 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Collins v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC,
`No. 19-22864-Civ (MGC) (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 176 .............................................................. 21
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-MD-2800-TWT, 2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) ................................ 15
`
`G. F. v. Contra Costa Cty.,
`No. 13-CV-03667-MEJ, 2015 WL 4606078 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) ................................. 21
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`Gay v. Tom’s of Maine, Inc.,
`No. 0:14-cv-60604-KMM, Dkt. No. 43 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2016) ......................................... 16
`
`Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`No. C-06-4068 MMC, 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) .................................. 9, 14
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... 10, 23
`
`Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Servs., Inc.,
`No. 104-CV-3400-TCB, 2007 WL 1953464 (N.D. Ga. June 12, 2007) ................................. 17
`
`Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`No. 4:13-cv-00003-AWA-LRL, Dkt. No. 209 ........................................................................ 16
`
`Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-02786-LHK, 2013 WL 496358 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) .................................... 20
`
`In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`No. 09CV1088 BTM KSC, 2013 WL 5275618 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) ..................... 16, 17
`
`Jennings v. Open Door Mktg., LLC,
`No. 15-CV-04080-KAW, 2018 WL 4773057 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) ................................. 19
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`No. 11-cv-05188-WHO, 2014 WL 3404531 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) ................................. 14
`
`Legg v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,
`No. 14-61543-CV, 2016 WL 3944069 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016) ........................................... 16
`
`In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 12, 21
`
`McDonald v. CP OpCo, LLC,
`No. 17-CV-04915-HSG, 2019 WL 2088421 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) ................................ 11
`
`Moore v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. C 09-1823 SBA, 2013 WL 450365 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5. 2013) .......................................... 16
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`In re Nexus 6P Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2019 WL 6622842 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) ................................ 20
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`Nicholas der-Hacopian v. Darktrace, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-06726-HSG, 2020 WL 7260054 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020) ................................ 21
`
`Noll v. eBay, Inc.,
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`In re NVIDIA GPU Litig.,
`539 F. App’x 822 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in Gulf of Mexico,
`910 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. La. 2010) ...................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................. 14
`
`Parker v. Anderson,
`667 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC,
`951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Rodman v. Safeway Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-03003-JST, 2018 WL 4030558 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) ................................. 17
`
`Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 7, 10, 11
`
`Roe v. Jose Torres L.D. Latin Club Bar, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-06088-LB, 2020 WL 5074392 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2020) .................................. 11
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-02200-HSG, 2020 WL 511953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ................................... 11
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-02200-HSG, 2020 WL 6484833 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020) ................................. 20
`
`Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers,
`904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.,
`No. SA CV 12-0215 FMO, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137184 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2016) ........ 17
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Stovall-Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-02540-HSG, 2015 WL 3776765 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) ................................ 11
`
`In re Syncor ERISA Litig.,
`516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Buholzer,
`156 F. App’x 346 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 17
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 02 CIV 3288(DLC), 2004 WL 2591402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2004) ................................ 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`4 Newberg on Class Actions § 13.45 (5th ed.) .............................................................................. 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ...................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`947352.1
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`vi
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`The Settlement Class Members’ reaction to the Settlement was overwhelmingly positive. Of
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`the approximately 3.2 million Settlement Class Members, only nine opted out and only one—a
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`disbarred attorney who is a serial objector and not a member of the class—filed an objection. Over
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`ninety-nine percent (99%) of the Settlement Class Members were prequalified to participate in the
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`Settlement using Apple’s records, received direct notice of the Settlement, and do not need to submit
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`a claim form to participate in the Settlement. These persons will automatically receive a payment for
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`each of their qualifying devices. The small balance of the Settlement Class Members (0.2%) who
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`were not prequalified by Apple and will not receive an automatic payment had the opportunity to
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`participate in the Settlement by submitting an Application for Inclusion, which 3,358 individuals did.
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Parties now seek final approval of the
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`Settlement.1
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`Under the terms of the Settlement, Apple will fund an $18 million non-reversionary cash
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`Settlement Fund. After deducting from the Settlement Fund the costs of notice and claims
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`administration, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and incentive awards, the proceeds of the fund will be
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`distributed automatically by electronic and/or paper checks.
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`On September 10, 2020, this Court issued an Order preliminarily approving this class action
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`Settlement. See Dkt. No. 426 (“Preliminary Approval Order”). The Preliminary Approval Order was
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`the product of an extensive inquiry by the Court, which engaged with Class Counsel during a nearly
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`90-minute hearing regarding myriad aspects of the proposed Settlement, and requested and received
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`supplemental briefing providing further detailed information regarding the proposed Settlement (see
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`Dkt. No. 424).
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`Pursuant to the Notice Plan set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order and Settlement
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`Agreement, Epiq, the Claims Administrator appointed by the Court, has sent direct notice to the
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`3,222,856 Class Members. See Declaration of Cameron R. Azari (“Azari Decl.”), ¶¶ 14-23. The
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 All capitalized terms referenced herein are defined in the Settlement Agreement.
`947352.1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`Notice reached 97% of the Settlement Class. Id., ¶ 23. Additionally, Epiq received 3,358
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`Applications for Inclusion (“Applications”) in the Class from persons who believe they have a device
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`that falls within the Class definition. Id., ¶ 24. Only nine Settlement Class Members opted out of the
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`settlement, and only one objection was filed. Id., ¶¶ 36-37. Accordingly, Epiq has successfully
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`effectuated the Court-approved Notice Plan and the response of Class Members has been extremely
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`positive.
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`As previously set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. No. 414), the
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`“Churchill factors” strongly support final approval of the proposed Settlement. See Churchill Vill.,
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004). The Settlement is fair, reasonable and
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`adequate and meets all requirements for final approval. It provides for immediate monetary relief to
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`the Settlement Class Members whose devices are alleged to have been impacted by the April 16, 2014
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`Facetime Break. Absent a settlement, the Class would face the task of maintaining class certification
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`through trial, the expense and uncertainty of trial, and the risk of appeal. Accordingly, the Court
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`should grant final approval of the Settlement.
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims
`
`Plaintiff Christina Grace filed this Action on February 2, 2017, and filed the Amended
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`Complaint, which added Plaintiff Ken Potter, on April 5, 2017. The Amended Complaint alleges “a
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`consumer class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`who owned an Apple iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S that was operating on iOS 6 or an earlier operating
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`system, and therefore lost the ability to use Apple’s ‘FaceTime’ video conferencing feature when
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`Apple intentionally broke FaceTime for iOS 6 and earlier operating systems on April 16, 2014.” Dkt.
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`No. 36. Plaintiffs assert two causes of action: trespass to chattels under California law, and violation
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”). Id.
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs seek damages and restitution on a class-wide basis for the
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`diminution in value of their iPhone 4 and 4S devices allegedly caused by the FaceTime Break.2
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The “FaceTime Break” refers to the April 16, 2014 expiration of the certificate that allowed the
`FaceTime feature to function on iPhone 4 and 4S devices running on iOS 6 or an earlier version.
`947352.1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`Plaintiffs retained Dr. Justine S. Hastings, Ph.D., to calculate aggregate class-wide damages measured
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`by the diminution in value of Class Members’ iPhone 4 and 4S devices caused by the FaceTime
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`Break. Dkt. No. 174. Dr. Hastings’ econometric damages model produced an estimate of the impact
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`of the FaceTime Break on prices of used iPhone 4 and 4S models and concluded that Apple’s conduct
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`impacted the prices by, on average, $18.30 per device.
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`Apple denies the allegations and challenged the propriety of the damages model, which among
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`other things was based on data pertaining solely to business-to-business transactions rather than
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`transactions involving class members or those similarly situated.
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History
`
`This case was vigorously litigated. The parties engaged in significant motion practice,
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`including a motion to dismiss, a motion for class certification, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`(“Rule”) 23(f) petition, 12 discovery motions, a summary judgment motion, 6 motions in limine and
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of Plaintiffs’ two experts. Declaration of
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`Daniel L. Warshaw in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Warshaw
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 18. On July 28, 2017, the Court denied Apple’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`Complaint. Dkt. No. 65. On September 19, 2018, the Court issued a Class Certification Order
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) defined as “[a]ll owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.” Dkt. No. 269. The Court denied certification of a
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`nationwide class and did not certify an injunctive relief class under the UCL. Id. On November 6,
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition pursuant to Rule 23(f) seeking permission to appeal the Court’s denial
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`of certification of a nationwide class. Dkt. No. 290. On March 20, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`permission to appeal. Dkt. No. 295. On April 29, 2019 the Court set the case for trial on April 6,
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`2020; however, the trial date was vacated. Dkt. Nos. 301, 410. On August 21, 2019, the Court denied
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`Apple’s Summary Judgment Motion. Dkt. No. 306. On September 10, 2020, the Court issued the
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`Preliminary Approval Order (Dkt. No. 426) following a nearly 90-minute hearing regarding all
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`aspects of the proposed Settlement and supplemental briefing (Dkt. No. 424).
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`
`947352.1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`A. Mediation and Settlement
`
`On November 9, 2018, the parties attended an all-day Court-ordered mediation session before
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`the Honorable William J. Cahill (Ret.), at JAMS in San Francisco. Warshaw Decl., ¶ 3. The parties
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`were unable to reach a settlement. Id. After denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment, the
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`Court ordered the parties to return to mediation. On October 22, 2019, the parties returned to JAMS
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`for a mediation before Judge Cahill but were again unable to reach agreement on all terms of a
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`settlement. Id., ¶ 4. After the second mediation, Judge Cahill engaged in extensive settlement
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`discussions with each party but ultimately a settlement was not reached. Id., ¶ 5. As the litigation
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`progressed closer to trial, the Court ordered the Parties to attend a settlement conference before the
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`Honorable Nathanael Cousins. Dkt. No. 325. On December 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Cousins held
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`an all-day settlement conference, but the parties were again unable to resolve the case. Warshaw
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`Decl., ¶ 6. After extensive follow-up discussions, the parties attended a second in-person settlement
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`conference with Magistrate Judge Cousins on January 16, 2020, which also did not result in a
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`settlement. Id., ¶ 7. Magistrate Judge Cousins continued conferring with the parties and, on January
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`31, 2020, made a mediator’s proposal. Id., ¶ 8. On February 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Cousins
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`informed the parties that both parties had accepted the mediator’s proposal. Id., ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Settlement Class
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides for relief to the following Class Members:
`
`All owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices
`who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their
`iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices, and who were in California at that time.
`
`The Class includes3 approximately 3.2 million individuals who were affected by the FaceTime
`
`Break and who are members of the class certified by the Court. Dkt. No. 269.4
`
`
`3 The Class excludes (a) directors, officers, and employees of Apple or its subsidiaries and affiliated
`companies; (b) the Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this matter is ever
`assigned and its staff; (c) Apple Counsel, as well as their immediate family members, legal
`representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and (d) any individuals who timely exclude themselves
`from the Class or whose claims have already been adjudicated to a final judgment.
`4 Because there is no way, using available records, to verify if a user has jailbroken their phone, the
`Settlement Agreement provides that otherwise-qualifying iPhone devices will be presumed to be non-
`947352.1
`Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 435 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`C. Monetary Relief
`
`Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Apple will fund an $18 million non-reversionary
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`cash Settlement Fund. After subtracting from the Settlement Fund the costs of notice and claims
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`administration, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and incentive awards, the proceeds of the Net Settlement
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`Fund will be distributed automatically by the Settlement Administrator by electronic and/or paper
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`checks. Each Settlement Class Member will receive a Class Payment for each of their qualifying
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices. Settlement Class Members did not need to submit a claim in order to
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`receive their direct payment from the Net Settlement Fund. The amount of payments to each
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`participating Settlement Class Member will be calculated based on each Settlement Class Member’s
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`proportional share of the Net Settlement Fund, i.e., the Net Settlement Fund balance divided by the
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`total number of eligible devices.
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`The Settlement Agreement provides for a meet and confer process between the Parties to
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`determine the most appropriate disposition of any unclaimed funds from uncashed checks following
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`the initial payment. Plaintiffs’ position is that the Court should order a second distribution of any
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`such unclaimed funds to Settlement Class Members who cashed checks from the first distribution,
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`and that if, after the second distribution, unclaimed funds remain in the Settlement Fund, they should
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`be donated to the Consumer Federation of America via cy pres.5 Apple’s position is that unclaimed
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`funds, if any, from uncashed checks should escheat to the State of California for the class members’
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`benefit. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Parties will brief this issue for the Court if
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`necessary, but under no circumstances will any of the Settlement funds revert to Apple.
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`D.
`
`Narrowly Tailored Release
`
`The Settlement Agreement contains a narrowly tailored release that is specifically limited to
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`claims arising from, or related to, the facts underlying the Action and the certified California Class.
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`Settlement Agreement at ¶ 8.1. The Settlement Agreement is not intended to abridge the rights of
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`consumers in other states who may have potential claims. Id., Recitals, p. 5.
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jailbroken unless it is determined through existing records that they are jailbroken.
`5 The cy pres recipient was one of the topics that the Court sought further information on following
`the preliminary approval hearing which was