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)

Download PDF
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?