`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)
`jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
`MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
`bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
`ANYA THEPOT (SBN 318430)
`athepot@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: 650.697.6000
`Facsimile: 650.697.0577
`
`LAURENCE D. KING (SBN 206243)
`lking@kaplanfox.com
`MARIO M. CHOI (SBN 243409)
`mchoi@kaplanfox.com
`KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
`1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Telephone: 415.772.4700
`Facsimile: 415.772.4707
`
`FREDERIC S. FOX (pro hac vice)
`ffox@kaplanfox.com
`DONALD R. HALL (pro hac vice)
`dhall@kaplanfox.com
`DAVID A. STRAITE (pro hac vice)
`dstraite@kaplanfox.com
`KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
`850 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: 212.687.1980
`Facsimile: 212.687.7714
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`Date: April 3, 2020
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE
`PERFORMANCE LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`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 No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 3, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4 of the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building &
`United States Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113, the Honorable Edward
`J. Davila, presiding, Named Plaintiffs1 will and hereby do move for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”): (i) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement;
`(ii) certifying a class for settlement purposes (“Settlement Class”); (iii) approving the form and
`manner of notice to the Settlement Class; (iv) approving the selection of the Settlement
`Administrator; and (iv) scheduling a Final Hearing before the Court.
`The proposed Settlement is within the range of what is fair, reasonable, and adequate such
`that notice of its terms may be disseminated to Settlement Class Members and a Final Hearing to
`finally approve the proposed Settlement scheduled.
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities set forth below, the accompanying Joint Declaration of Joseph W. Cotchett and
`Laurence D. King in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement,
`dated February 28, 2020 (“Joint Declaration”), and the exhibits attached thereto, the Stipulation of
`Settlement dated February 28, 2020 (“Stipulation” or “Settlement”), and the exhibits attached
`thereto, the pleadings and records on file in this Action, and other such matters and argument as the
`Court may consider at the hearing of this motion.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the proposed Settlement is within the range of fairness, reasonableness,
`1.
`and adequacy as to warrant: (a) the Court’s preliminary approval; (b) certification of a Settlement
`Class for settlement purposes; (c) the dissemination of Notice of its terms to Settlement Class
`Members; and (d) setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement as well as application
`of attorneys’ fees, service awards, and reimbursement of expenses;
`
`
`1 All capitalized words are defined in the Stipulation unless otherwise noted.
`
`- i -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`Whether the proposed Notice adequately apprises the Settlement Class Members of
`2.
`the terms of the Settlement and their rights with respect to it;
`3.
`Whether the selection of Angeion Group as Settlement Administrator should be
`approved;
`4.
`approved; and
`5.
`
`Whether the proposed Plan to Allocate Settlement proceeds should be preliminarily
`
`Whether the Claim Forms are sufficient.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`C.
`
`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
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT .......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Summary of the Litigation ......................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation ..................................................................... 4
`SUMMARY OF AND REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT .............................................. 4
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Legal Standards on Preliminary Approval ................................................................. 5
`B.
`Conditional Class Certification of the Settlement Class is Warranted ...................... 6
`1.
`Named Plaintiffs Satisfy Rule 23(a) Prerequisites .......................................... 7
`2.
`Plaintiffs Satisfy Rule 23(b) Standards ........................................................... 8
`The Proposed Settlement Should Be Preliminarily Approved ................................... 9
`The Proposed Settlement is the Product of an Arms-Length, Non-
`1.
`Collusive, Negotiated Resolution .................................................................. 10
`The Proposed Settlement is the Product of a Mediator’s
`a.
`Proposal and is Supported by Experienced Counsel ........................ 10
`The Stage of the Proceedings and the Discovery Completed
`Support the Settlement ..................................................................... 11
`The Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements Factors are
`Satisfied ....................................................................................................... 12
`a.
`Guidance 1: Differences, Range, and Plan of Allocation ................ 12
`b.
`Guidance 2: The Proposed Settlement Administrator ...................... 18
`c.
`Guidance 3: The Proposed Notices to the Settlement Class are
`Adequate .......................................................................................... 18
`Guidance 4 and 5: Opt-Outs and Objections.................................... 20
`Guidance 6: The Intended Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
`Request ............................................................................................. 20
`Guidance 7: The Proposed Settlement and Proposed Service
`Awards Do Not Unjustly Favor Any Class Members,
`Including Named Plaintiffs .............................................................. 21
`Guidance 8: Cy Pres Awardees ........................................................ 23
`Guidance 9: Proposed Timeline ....................................................... 24
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`d.
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`h.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 36
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (-cont.)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`i.
`Guidance 10: Class Action Fairness Act .......................................... 24
`Guidance 11: Past Distributions ....................................................... 24
`j.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc.,
`No. 3:10-CV-02134-H-DHB, 2013 WL 1748729 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013)............................... 17
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 22
`Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-2666-JM-BGS, 2011 WL 13356361 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2011) .............................. 12
`Cox v. Clarus Mktg. Group, LLC,
`291 F.R.D. 473 (S.D. Cal. 2013)................................................................................................ 22
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-00258-HSG, 2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ............................... 7, 8, 10
`Eddings v. Health Net, Inc.,
`No. CV 10-1744-JST (RZX), 2013 WL 3013867 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) ........................... 23
`Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility,
`87 F.R.D. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1981) ......................................... 10
`Fulford v. Logitech, Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-02041 MMC, 2010 WL 807448 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) ....................................... 22
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................... 5
`Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,
`976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)........................................................................................................ 8
`In re Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig.,
`No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1993916 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2019) ..................................... 4
`In re Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig.,
`No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 3973752 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019)................................... 4
`In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mkting, Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 17-md-02777-EMC, 2019 WL 536661 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2019) ..................................... 12
`In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig.,
`No. 5:11-CV-02911-EJD, 2013 WL 2237890 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013) ............................. 6, 17
`In re Heritage Bond Litig.,
`No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ......................................... 5
`In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019)........................................................................................................ 5
`In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 22
`In re Magsafe Apple Power Litig.,
`No. 5:09-cv-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ..................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (-cont.)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
`No. 5:11-CV-00379 EJD, 2012 WL 2598819 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012) .................................... 12
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015)................................................................................................ 21, 22
`In re Portal Software Sec. Litig.,
`No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ...................................... 11
`In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 1991529 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2007)....................................... 23
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
`484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ....................................................................................... 6
`In re TD Ameritrade Account Holder Litigation,
`No. C 07-2852 SBA, 2011 WL 4079226 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2011) ........................................ 17
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2016 WL 6248426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) ........................................ 11
`In re: Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig.,
`347 F. Supp. 3d 434 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ......................................................................................... 3
`In re: Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig.,
`386 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................... 3, 13, 14
`In re: Lenovo Adware Litig.,
`No. 15-md-02624-HSG, 2018 WL 6099948 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018)................................... 18
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012)...................................................................................................... 19
`Lemus v. H & R Block Enterprises LLC.,
`No. C 09-3179 SI, 2012 WL 3638550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012) ............................................ 17
`Lewis v. Green Dot Corporation,
`No. CV 16-3557 FMO (AGRx), 2017 WL 4785978 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2017) ....................... 17
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
`151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 15
`McNeal v. RCM Technologies USA Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-05170-ODW(SSx), 2017 WL 1807595 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017) ....................... 17
`Noll v. eBay, Inc.,
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................... 7, 8, 9, 20
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982).................................................................................................... 5, 9
`Peel v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp.,
`No. SACV 11-00079-JLS (RNBx), 2014 WL 12589317 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) ............... 12
`Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................... 15
`- vi -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (-cont.)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
`715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013)........................................................................................ 21, 22, 23
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................ 5
`Roe v. Frito-Lay, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-00751-HSG, 2016 WL 4154850 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) ...................................... 15
`Rosado v. Ebay Inc.,
`No. 5:12-cv-04005-EJD, 2016 WL 3401987 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016) .................................. 22
`Russell v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc.,
`No. ED CV 15-1143 RGK (SPx), 2016 WL 6694958 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016) ..................... 20
`Schaffer v. Litton Loan Serv., LP.,
`No. CV 05-07673 MMM (JCx), 2012 WL 10274679 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) .................... 15
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2020 WL 511953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ................................. 12, 18
`Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-1116-IEG (WMC), 2013 WL 163293 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) ............................ 21
`Spann v. JC Penney Corp.,
`314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................................... 9, 10, 12
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)............................................................................................ 5, 22, 23
`Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
`529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976)........................................................................................................ 5
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. CV 09–00261 SBA (EMC), 2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ...................... 11
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002).................................................................................................... 21
`Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W.D. Wash.,
`173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999)...................................................................................................... 15
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ..................................................................................................................... 7
`Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2013)........................................................................................................ 7
`Williamson v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-00158-EJD, 2016 WL 4524307 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) .................................. 20
`Wright v. Linkus Enters., Inc.,
`259 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................................. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 36
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (-cont.)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Statutes
`18 U.S.C.
`§ 1030, Computer Fraud Abuse Act (“CFAA”) ...................................................................... 3, 4
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1407 ........................................................................................................................................... 3
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1711, et seq. "Class Action Fairness Act" .............................................................................. 24
`California Penal Code
`§ 502, Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”) ..................................................... 3, 4
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 23 ................................................................................................................................ passim
` Rule 23(a) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
` Rule 23(a)(1) ................................................................................................................................ 7
` Rule 23(a)(2) ................................................................................................................................ 7
` Rule 23(a)(3) ................................................................................................................................ 7
` Rule 23(a)(4) ................................................................................................................................ 8
` Rule 23(b) .................................................................................................................................... 7
` Rule 23(b)(3) ........................................................................................................................ 7, 8, 9
` Rule 23(c)(2)(B) ................................................................................................................... 18, 19
` Rule 23(e)(1) .............................................................................................................................. 19
` Rule 23(e)(5) .............................................................................................................................. 20
` Rule 23(h)(1) .............................................................................................................................. 19
` Rule 30(a) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Federal Trade Commission,
`CONSUMERS AND CLASS ACTIONS: A RETROSPECTIVE AND ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT
`CAMPAIGNS (Sept. 2019) at p. 21 ............................................................................................... 18
`Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Settlement of
`Class Action Settlements .................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Named Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support
`of their Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement in the above-captioned action (“Action”),
`and entry of the [Proposed] Order Certifying Settlement Class; Granting Preliminary Approval of
`Class Action Settlement; and Approving Form and Content of Class Notice (“Preliminary Approval
`Order”), attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation. The Preliminary Approval Order will: (i) grant
`preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement on the terms set forth in the Stipulation;
`(ii) certify a provisional Settlement Class; (iii) approve the form and manner of notice of the proposed
`Settlement to the Settlement Class; and (iv) schedule a hearing date for the final approval of the
`Settlement (“Final Approval Hearing”) and a schedule for various deadlines in connection with the
`Settlement.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`After two years of hard-fought and contentious litigation, the Parties have reached an
`agreement to resolve the proposed Settlement Class’s claims against Defendant Apple Inc.
`(“Defendant” or “Apple”) pursuant to the accompanying Stipulation. The Settlement was reached
`only after extensive, aggressive litigation and prolonged, well-informed, and extensive arm’s-length
`negotiations—including several in-person mediation sessions and additional negotiations—between
`experienced and knowledgeable counsel facilitated by mediator Judge Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) of
`Phillips ADR. The Settlement, based upon a mediator’s proposal, was reached after extensive
`motion practice and discovery.
`During the course of the litigation, Named Plaintiffs, through co-lead counsel Cotchett,
`Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (“Class Counsel”), and/or their agents
`had, among other things: (i) conducted a wide-ranging investigation into the Settlement Class’s
`claims; (ii) filed two comprehensive complaints; (iii) successfully opposed Defendant’s motions to
`dismiss as to certain theories of liability; (iv) engaged in a comprehensive discovery program,
`including 19 depositions, responding to hundreds of discovery requests, reviewing more than
`7 million pages of documents, and engaging in extensive motion practice over discovery issues; and
`(v) consulted with expert consultants. As a result, Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel had a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`thorough understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims asserted at the time
`the Settlement was reached.
`Named Plaintiffs submit that, as demonstrated below, this is an excellent recovery for the
`Settlement Class considering the substantial risks at class certification and trial. Based on an
`informed evaluation of the facts and governing legal principles, and their recognition of the
`substantial risk and expense of continued litigation, the Parties respectfully submit that the proposed
`Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. Accordingly, Named Plaintiffs move for
`preliminary approval and submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof.
`II.
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
`The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary Minimum Class Settlement Amount of
`$310 million, with a Maximum Class Settlement Amount of $500 million, in cash, for the benefit of
`the proposed Settlement Class, comprised of all former or current U.S. iPhone2 owners.3
`For a release of their claims, Settlement Class Members will receive $25.00 for each iPhone
`owned, the amount of which may increase or decrease depending on the amount of any Attorneys’
`Fees and Expenses, Named Plaintiff Service Awards, notice expenses, and the aggregate value of
`Approved Claims. If payment of $25.00 for each iPhone device identified as Approved Claims, plus
`the payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, Named Plaintiff Service Awards, and notice and
`administration fees would not reach the Minimum Class Settlement Amount, the Residual will be
`allocated according to the Stipulation, including increasing payments to Settlement Class Members
`on a pro rata basis up to a maximum of $500. Conversely, if the number of iPhone devices identified
`as Approved Claims, multiplied by $25.00, exceeds the Maximum Class Settlement Amount, then
`the cash payment for each iPhone will be reduced on a pro rata basis in order to not exceed the
`Maximum Class Settlement Amount.
`
`
`2 “iPhone” means Apple iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, and SE devices. Stip. § 1.16.
`3 This Settlement will also encompass the California JCCP Action, captioned In re Apple OS Cases,
`JCCP No. 4976 (Cal. Super. Ct., S.F. Cty.). If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, the
`California JCCP Action will be dismissed. Stip. § 9.1. There will not be a classwide settlement for
`non-U.S. Named Plaintiffs, who will be releasing their individual claims only. Because Non-U.S.
`iPhone owners’ claims will not be released, they may pursue their own claims outside the Settlement.
`- 2 -
`
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Named Plaintiffs will also seek Service Awards of $3,500 for those who were deposed in
`the Action and $1,500 for all others. Finally, Class Counsel intend to seek up to 30% of the Minimum
`Class Settlement Amount, or $93 million, as reasonable attorneys’ fees, and no more than
`$1.5 million for out-of-pocket expenses. The Settlement is not conditioned upon the Court’s
`approval of the full (or any) amount of Service Awards or Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.
`III.
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Summary of the Litigation
`On December 20, 2017, Apple released a statement regarding a performance management
`feature in its iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 software to avoid unexpected power-offs (“UPOs”) from
`occurring in its devices. Between December 2017 and June 2018, the Federal Actions, consisting of
`66 underlying class action complaints, were filed against Apple. Beginning on April 4, 2018, the
`Federal Actions were consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the
`Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, into MDL proceedings captioned In re
`Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 18-md-2827-EJD [Dkt. 1].
`After their appointment [Dkt. 99], on July 2, 2018, Class Counsel filed a Consolidated
`Amended Complaint (“CAC”) in the Action [Dkt. 145]. On October 1, 2018, the Court granted in
`part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss the CAC [Dkt. 219]. See In re: Apple Inc. Device
`Perf. Litig., 347 F. Supp. 3d 434 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
`On November 30, 2018, Class Counsel filed the operative Second Consolidated Amended
`Complaint (“2CAC”) [Dkt. 244]. The 2CAC asserted claims for fraud, breach of contractual
`relations, violation of the consumer protection laws, “trespass to chattels,” and violations of the
`California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”) and the federal Computer Fraud Abuse
`Act (“CFAA”). Id. On April 22, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion
`to dismiss the 2CAC [Dkt. 331]. See In re: Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1155
`(N.D. Cal. 2019).4 The Court dismissed, with prejudice, claims that the iPhones were “defective,”
`claims based on certain iPhone devices, and common law and statutory fraud claims (whether based
`
`
`4 Defendant also sought reconsideration of the Court’s first motion to dismiss order as to issues
`concerning a worldwide class [Dkt. 236], which the Court resolved in this order. Id.
`- 3 -
`
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`on a theory of affirmative misrepresentation or omission). Id. The Court also dismissed, without
`prejudice, claims related to Named Plaintiffs’ theory that Apple had breached contractual
`obligations. Id. The Court upheld the claims for trespass to chattels and claims under the CDAFA
`and CFAA. Id. Defendant answered the 2CAC on July 31, 2019 [Dkt. 365].
`The Parties engaged in extensive discovery in the Action. Class Counsel served more than
`170 document requests on Apple, in response to which Apple produced more than seven million
`pages of documents. Apple served written discovery and document requests to each of the Named
`Plaintiffs, who produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. The Parties deposed 19 individuals,
`including 10 Apple witnesses and nine Named Plaintiffs. The Parties also litigated several discovery
`motions before the Hon. Rebecca Westerfield (Ret.) as Special Discovery Master, as well as before
`this Court. See, e.g., In re Apple Inc. Device Perf. Litig., No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL
`1993916 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2019); id., 2019 WL 3973752 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019).
`
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation
`The Parties engaged in extensive, arms-length negotiations over the course of many months,
`including several all-day, in-person mediation sessions and numerous additional discussions with
`Judge Phillips, a former United States District Judge and highly respected mediator. After the third
`in-person mediation with Judge Phillips on September 27, 2019, Judge Phillips made a mediator’s
`proposal to the Parties. The Parties accepted the proposal, with continued involvement by the
`mediator throughout the process of negotiating a term sheet and long-form settlement agreement.
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF AND REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
`It is respectfully submitted that the Settlement meets the legal standards for preliminary
`approval and the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Settlement of Class
`Action Settlements (the “Guidance”).5 Based upon their investigation, Named Plaintiffs and Class
`Counsel concluded that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, and adequate
`to the Settlement Class and in their best interests. The Parties agreed to settle the Action pursuant to
`the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, after considering: (i) the substantial benefits that
`
`
`5 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/
`visited Feb. 10, 2020).
`
`
`(last
`
`- 4 -
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. A