throbber
Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826)
`Jordan Elias (State Bar No. 228731)
`Simon S. Grille (State Bar No. 294914)
`GIRARD SHARP LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Tel: (415) 981-4800
`dgirard@girardsharp.com
`jelias@girardsharp.com
`sgrille@girardsharp.com
`
`Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice)
`J. Austin Moore (pro hac vice)
`Jillian R. Dent (pro hac vice)
`STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
`460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Telephone: (816) 714-7100
`Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
`siegel@stuevesiegel.com
`moore@stuevesiegel.com
`dent@stuevesiegel.com
`
`Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE INTUIT FREE FILE LITIGATION
`
` Case No. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT AND TO DISTRIBUTE
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: December 17, 2020
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... viii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ......................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`The Parties’ Settlement Negotiations ........................................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIAL SETTLEMENT TERMS ......................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Settlement Class ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Settlement Consideration ............................................................................................ 6
`
`1. Monetary Consideration .................................................................................. 6
`
`2.
`
`Non-monetary Consideration ........................................................................... 7
`
`Distribution of Settlement Fund .................................................................................. 8
`
`Class Notice ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Opt-Outs and Objections ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Release of Claims ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Settlement Administrator .......................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED AS FAIR,
`REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. .................................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Proposed Settlement Is the Product of Arm’s Length Negotiations Among
`Experienced Counsel. ................................................................................................ 12
`
`The Proposed Settlement Provides for Equitable Distribution of the Fund. ................ 13
`
`The Relief Under the Proposed Settlement Is Adequate. ............................................ 14
`
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`VI. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS LIKELY WILL BE CERTIFIED. .......................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied........................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Class Members Are Too Numerous to Be Joined. ................................... 17
`
`There Are Common Questions of Law and Fact............................................. 18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Class. ................................................... 18
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Protect the
`Interests of the Class. ..................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied. ..................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Common Questions Predominate for Settlement Purposes. ............................ 19
`
`A Class Action Is a Superior Means of Resolving This Controversy. ............. 20
`
`VII. THE CLASS NOTICE AND PLAN FOR DISSEMINATION ARE REASONABLE
`AND SHOULD BE APPROVED. ........................................................................................ 20
`
`VIII. CLASS MEMBERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO OPT OUT BEFORE PURSUING
`ARBITRATIONS AGAINST INTUIT. ................................................................................ 21
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc.
`731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 18
`
`Allen v. Bedolla
`787 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Amchem Prods. v. Windsor
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................7
`
`Burden v. SelectQuote Ins. Servs.
`2013 WL 1190634 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Camacho v. Auto. Club of S. Calif.
`142 Cal. App. 4th 1394 (2006) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Carlough v. Amchem Prod., Inc.
`10 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................... 24
`
`DeHoyos v. Allstate Corp.
`240 F.R.D. 269 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Doe v. Deja Vu Servs., Inc.
`2017 WL 530434 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2017).......................................................................... 22, 25
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.
`2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Federal Ins. Co. v. Caldera Med., Inc.
`2016 WL 5921245 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) ............................................................................... 13
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.
`No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano
`2011 WL 11705815 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) ........................................................................... 17
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google, LLC
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47380 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) ............................................................ 17
`
`Global Fitness Holdings, LLC
`2014 WL 1350509 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2014) .................................................................................8
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. passim
`
`Harris v. Wells
`764 F. Supp. 743 (D. Conn. 1991) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Hendricks v. StarKist Co.
`2015 WL 4498083 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) .............................................................................. 14
`
`In re Baldwin-United Corp.
`770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 24
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.
`2016 WL 3648478 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) .......................................................................... 14, 17
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.
`2016 WL 6778406 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) ............................................................................. 13
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Practices & Sec. Litig.
`2020 WL 3512807 (D. Minn. June 29, 2020) .............................................................................. 24
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Practices & Sec. Litig.
`2020 WL 869980 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2020) ................................................................................. 24
`
`In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.
`90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig.
`521 F.2d 775 (1975) .............................................................................................................. 22, 23
`
`In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig.
`414 F. Supp. 3d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig.
`2013 WL 2237890 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013) .............................................................................. 16
`
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig.
`301 F.R.D. 191 (E.D. Pa. 2014) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Oracle Sec. Litig.
`1994 WL 502054 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 1994) ................................................................................ 13
`
`In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig.
`1996 WL 374162 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 1996) ................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.
`2019 WL 35998 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019) ................................................................................... 11
`
`In re School Asbestos Litig.
`1991 WL 61156 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1991)
`aff’d, 950 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 21, 22
`
`In re Sony PS3 “Other OS” Litig.
`2017 WL 5598726 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) ............................................................................. 21
`
`In re Sulzer Hip Prothesis & Knee Prosthesis Liab. Litig.
`2002 WL 32138298 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2002) ........................................................................... 24
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.
`2017 WL 672820 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) .................................................................... 10, 11, 20
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
`229 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ........................................................................................ 24
`
`James v. Bellotti
`733 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1984)........................................................................................................ 24
`
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
`765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`K.H. v. Secretary of Dep’t of Homeland Sec.
`2018 WL 6606248 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Kamakahi v. Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med.
`305 F.R.D. 164 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Kulesa v. PC Cleaner, Inc.
`2014 WL 12581769 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Larson v. AT&T Mobility LLC
`2009 WL 10689759 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2009)............................................................................ 21, 22
`
`v
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.
`308 F.R.D. 231 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Makekau v. State
`943 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2019)
`cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2740 (2020) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`Martin v. Monsanto Co.
`2017 WL 1115167 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Mendez v. C-Two Grp., Inc.
`2017 WL 1133371 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd.
`2017 WL 342059 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Mergens v. Sloan Valve Co.
`2017 WL 9486153 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
`2016 WL 1535057 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Ries v. Arizona Bevs. USA LLC
`287 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC
`944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`S.E.C. v. Capital Consultants, LLC
`397 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.
`314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
`916 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................... 18
`
`vi
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) .......................................................................................................... 14, 19
`
`Wahl v. Yahoo! INC.
`2018 WL 6002323 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) ............................................................................. 21
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Wright v. Linkus Enters., Inc.
`259 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................... 21, 22
`
` Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ...............................................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 .............................................................................................................................. 21
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ....................................................................................................................... viii, 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) advisory committee’s note (1966)............................................................... 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) advisory committee’s note (2018) ............................................................. 12, 17
`
`Federal Trade Commission, com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital
`Advertising ....................................................................................................................................7
`
` Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard by the Honorable Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court,
`located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs Andrew Dohrmann, Joseph
`Brougher, and Monica Chandler will and hereby do move, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, for entry of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order, and request that the Court set
`the following schedule for settlement proceedings:
`
`Event
`Class Action Fairness Act notice to state and
`federal officials, under 28 U.S.C. § 1715
`Settlement Website activated
`
`Deadline
`Within 10 days after filing of this motion
`
`Within 7 days after preliminary approval
`
`Notice campaign to begin
`
`Within 14 days after preliminary approval
`
`Notice to be substantially completed
`
`45 days after preliminary approval
`
`Plaintiffs to move for final approval of the
`settlement
`Plaintiffs to move for attorneys’ fees, expenses,
`and service awards
`Deadline for submission of objections and
`requests for exclusion
`Deadline to file a claim
`
`At least 21 days before the deadline for
`submitting objections
`At least 21 days before the deadline for
`submitting objections
`90 days after preliminary approval
`
`135 days after preliminary approval
`
`Plaintiffs to respond to any objections
`
`100 days after preliminary approval
`
`Final Approval Hearing
`
`At least 120 days after preliminary approval
`
`
`
`Within 60 days after the Effective Date
`
`Date on which settlement funds will be
`distributed to claimants
`
`The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the
`Joint Declaration of Daniel C. Girard and Norman E. Siegel (“Joint Decl.”), the Declaration of Hon.
`Edward A. Infante (Ret.) (“Infante Decl.”), the Declaration of Gina Intrepido-Bowden (“JND Decl.”),
`the record in this action, the argument of counsel, and any other matters the Court may consider.
`
`viii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`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.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a $40,000,000 settlement with Defendant Intuit Inc. to
`compensate taxpayers who were eligible to file a federal return for free under the IRS Free File
`Program but were charged a fee by Intuit on its TurboTax online website. All class members are
`eligible to participate by completing a simple claim form, which requires only that claimants attest
`that they understood they could file for free under the Free File Program but nevertheless paid a fee to
`use TurboTax. Class Counsel estimate the recoveries provided, considering customary claim rates,
`will return a substantial percentage of the fees paid by participating class members when they first
`filed their taxes using TurboTax. No portion of the settlement consideration will revert to Intuit. The
`settlement also requires Intuit to conform its marketing practices related to its Free Edition product to
`the FTC’s online marketing guidelines and to disclose the Free File Program—along with a
`taxpayer’s qualifications to file for free—on the TurboTax website. The proposed notice to the class
`prominently discloses that people with incomes of $69,000 or less can file for free and provides a link
`to the IRS Free File portal. The settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of sharply
`disputed claims and should be preliminarily approved to allow notice to issue to the class.
`After this Court denied Intuit’s motion to compel arbitration, the Ninth Circuit reversed in a
`split decision and denied Plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. On remand, Plaintiff Dohrmann lodged
`with the AAA an arbitration petition seeking among other relief a comprehensive injunction against
`the Intuit “free to fee” practices at issue in this litigation. Concurrently, the parties continued
`settlement discussions that began in January 2020 and continued on an ongoing basis. These
`negotiations included two mediations with Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.), one on June 22 and most
`recently on November 11, 2020, resulting in a final agreement. The settlement is the product of a
`deliberate, considered settlement process, carried on over almost a year, with the benefit of this
`Court’s rulings and oversight, lengthy discussions, and the sustained efforts of a highly experienced
`mediator.
`The parties reached their agreement with a thorough understanding of the evidence, claims, and
`defenses, drawn from Class Counsel’s review of over 100,000 pages of internal Intuit documents,
`
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`interviews with dozens of consumers, consultation with independent experts and industry
`professionals, Class Counsel’s preparation of a motion for final injunctive relief and class certification,
`input from an experienced mediator, and ongoing exchanges of factual and legal arguments with
`defense counsel. The settlement before the Court avoids the significant risks of continuing
`prosecution, complies with this District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, and
`meets all the criteria for preliminary approval under Rule 23. To ensure the preservation of the status
`quo and an orderly opt-out process, the parties request that the Court issue an injunction under the All
`Writs Act preventing class members from pursuing independent proceedings, including arbitrations,
`until they have validly excluded themselves from the class, at which time the injunction as against
`them will be lifted and they will be free to resume the pursuit of those claims. The circumstances
`calling for this exercise of the Court’s authority and the supporting authorities are discussed in Section
`VIII below.
`Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter the proposed order to authorize notice to the
`class and other relief and to schedule further settlement proceedings.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`II.
`Should the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B), preliminarily approve the parties’
`settlement and order notice to the proposed class?
`III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Joint Declaration of Daniel C. Girard and Norman E. Siegel in Support of Plaintiffs’
`Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (“Joint Decl.”) details the factual and procedural
`history of this case, the claims, counsel’s investigation and settlement negotiations, the risks and
`uncertainties presented in this litigation, and other factors showing the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
`and adequate.1 As described in the Joint Declaration and below, the Settlement before the Court is the
`product of a considered negotiation process begun in January 2020, informed by briefing on two key
`motions, exchanges of factual and legal arguments with defense counsel, review of over 100,000
`documents, and Judge Infante’s able assistance as mediator.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms have the meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement
`(“SA”), filed herewith.
`
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations
`A.
`Plaintiffs filed related actions against Intuit beginning in May 2019. On June 14, 2019, the
`Court ordered six related actions2 consolidated into this litigation. Dkt. No. 42. On August 20, 2019,
`the Court appointed the undersigned as interim co-lead class counsel. Dkt. No. 72. On September 13,
`2019, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that Intuit engaged in unfair
`and deceptive practices as part of a “free-to-fee” business strategy. Dkt. No. 80 (“Compl.”). An
`overview of these complaint allegations is provided below.
`As a participant in the IRS’s Free File Program, Intuit agreed to provide free online tax
`preparation and filing services to lower-income individuals and military service members. Compl. ¶¶
`1-5. In the 2018 tax year, Intuit agreed to provide free e-filing to taxpayers who (1) have adjusted
`gross incomes of $34,000 or less, (2) are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, or (3) are active
`military members with adjusted gross incomes of $66,000 or less. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. Intuit’s Free File
`online tax-return preparation software—what Intuit first called “TurboTax Freedom Edition”—
`allowed eligible taxpayers to prepare and e-file their federal and state tax returns for free. Id. ¶ 59.
`Freedom Edition gave users free access to more than 100 tax forms, allowing eligible taxpayers to file
`returns electronically for no charge if they met one of the three criteria stated above. Id. ¶ 60.
`Intuit advertised free tax-return preparation to draw taxpayers to Intuit’s fee-based preparation
`software, the similarly named TurboTax “Free Edition.” Id. ¶ 59. Intuit paid Google to promote its
`Free Edition site so that common web searches relating to free tax preparation services would bring up
`the Free Edition. Id. ¶ 76. Intuit at the same time engaged in “de-indexing,” inserting software code
`into the Freedom Edition website that suppressed it from web search results. Id. ¶¶ 73-74.
`Intuit’s “Free” marketing materials, including the links generated by its Google AdWords
`
`
`2 Sinohui v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02546-CRB; Dohrmann v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02566-CRB;
`Allwein v. Intuit, Inc., No. 19-02567-CRB, Nichols v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02666-CRB; Kehiaian v.
`Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02742-CRB; and Leon v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02878-CRB. The Court later
`deemed four additional lawsuits related and part of the consolidated action: Cook v. Intuit, Inc., No.
`19-cv-03460-KAW; Ostrovsky v. Intuit, Inc., No. 19-cv-05823-NC; McConnaughey v. Intuit Inc., No.
`5:19-cv-03745-SVK; and Williams v. Intuit, Inc., No. 20-cv-01908-JSC. Dkt. Nos. 51, 60, 91, 149.
`The latter action was transferred from the Eastern District of New York pursuant to stipulation after
`Plaintiffs on February 10, 2020 sought to intervene for purposes of moving to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404. See Williams v. Intuit Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00320-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 10, 20.
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`campaign, led to the TurboTax Free Edition website. Id. ¶ 76. Yet that site was not free for many
`taxpayers. Id. ¶ 61. Plaintiffs, while eligible to file for free, paid Intuit to file a return for tax year
`2018. Id. ¶¶ 16-45. TurboTax Free Edition required customers to pay to file most tax returns,
`including returns that would otherwise be eligible for free filing through the Freedom Edition. Id. ¶ 62.
`Plaintiffs contend Intuit did not adequately qualify its widespread offers of free tax preparation
`and filing with the fact that Free Edition is free only for a limited set of taxpayers. Id. ¶ 84. Instead,
`Intuit waited to assess a fee until the last minute, after taxpayers had answered all the questions
`necessary to prepare the return. Id. ¶ 94. Only as they were about to submit the return did Intuit
`disclose that they would be charged. Id. ¶¶ 63, 94. And Intuit did not adequately disclose that they
`could file the same return for free through its Freedom Edition website. Id. ¶¶ 62-64.
`Alleging these practices are unfair, unlawful and deceptive, Plaintiffs brought claims under
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and for unjust enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 120-53. Plaintiffs
`sought an injunction and restitution for a class of “[a]ll United States citizens and residents who during
`the applicable limitations period were eligible to file a federal tax return pursuant to the IRS Free File
`Program on Intuit’s TurboTax Freedom Edition website but paid a fee to TurboTax to file such
`return.” Id. ¶ 99.
`Procedural History
`B.
`The parties met in person for the Rule 26(f) conference on September 25, 2019. Joint Decl., ¶
`4. At the case management conference of October 4, 2019, the Court ordered most discovery3 stayed
`in light of Intuit’s impending motion to compel arbitration, filed October 28, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 92, 97.
`Plaintiffs subsequently took discovery

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