throbber
Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 415 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket