Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc.
Filing
449
ORDER regarding Plaintiffs' proposed modified distribution of the settlement fund. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on April 2, 2013. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW
OWENS, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated,
6
7
8
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 08-2820 CW
ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’
PROPOSED MODIFIED
DISTRIBUTION OF
THE SETTLEMENT
FUND
Defendant.
________________________________/
Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Plaintiffs have filed
12
proposed modifications to the plan of distribution under the
13
settlement agreement and Defendant has responded to Plaintiff’s
14
proposal.
15
addressing both parties’ submissions.
Objector Theodore H. Frank has also filed a brief
16
Having considered the papers filed by the parties and Mr.
17
Frank, the Court exercises its discretion under the settlement
18
agreement to select the plan of distribution identified as option
19
one in Plaintiffs’ brief.
20
be modified to compensate class members who have submitted claims,
21
and those who for whom the parties have identified names and
22
associated physical addresses, using a three times multiplier for
23
the damages alleged, and to send a settlement check automatically
24
to seventh generation class members for whom the parties have a
25
name and associated physical address in the amount of the average
26
claim paid to seventh generation purchaser claimants, including
27
the three times multiplier.
28
of damages is within its discretion both under the settlement
That is, the plan of distribution will
The Court finds that this allocation
1
agreement and the authority cited by Plaintiffs.
2
exercises its discretion under the agreement to approve the
3
parties’ proposed modification to the cy pres provision and
4
directs that any residual settlement funds escheat to the federal
5
government, which is primarily in charge of enforcing the
6
antitrust laws of the United States.
7
The Court also
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request that Gilardi & Co., LLC,
8
be allowed to continue providing notice and administering claims
9
in this case.
The Court declines to require Class Counsel to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
“reach out” to video game retailers or conduct the other search
11
efforts to locate physical addresses of class members proposed by
12
Mr. Frank, particularly in light of the fact that the parties
13
already have email addresses for ten million class members, who
14
will be provided with direct notice of the modified agreement and
15
can submit a claim form with their physical address if they so
16
choose.
17
The Court sets further dates as follows:
18
Event
Date
19
Deadline for Plaintiffs to efile, and submit in word
processing format to the Court’s
proposed order email address, a
draft of the supplemental
notice, after receiving approval
as to form from Defendant.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
24
Last day for administrator to
provide supplemental notice to
the class.
25
New close of claim period.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
2
1
Event
Date
2
Deadline for Plaintiffs to
submit a report regarding the
claims and a revised proposed
order regarding their motion for
final approval, to address the
revisions to the plan of
distribution and the arguments
raised by the objectors.
Monday, May 20, 2013
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No further hearing on the motion for final approval is
necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: April 2, 2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?