Neal v. Polycom, Inc. et al

Filing 132

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 131 Motion for Order Designating Cy Pres Recipients; Directing Further Submissions. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MARK NATHANSON,
Plaintiff,

7
vs.

8
9

POLYCOM, INC., ET AL.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
AN ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES
RECIPIENTS; DIRECTING FURTHER
SUBMISSIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 131

Defendants.

10
11

CASE NO. 13-cv-03476-YGR

The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ motion for an order designating cy pres recipients.

12

(Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiffs propose to allocate 50% of the remaining settlement funds to the

13

Institute of Law and Economic Policy (the “ILEP”). Plaintiffs indicate that next year a partner at

14

Pomerantz LLP will serve as President of the ILEP. The record reflects that Pomerantz LLP

15

represents plaintiffs in this matter.

16
17

The Court requires plaintiffs to propose a cy pre recipient which has no connection to the
law firms appearing in this matter. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file
a revised motion for an order designating cy pres recipients by April 23, 2018.

18
In addition, Counsel shall provide the information listed below by April 23, 2018. The
19
20
21

information should be provided in a summary chart format, preferably similar to that shown in
Appendix A hereto from William B. Rubenstein, The Fairness Hearing: Adversarial and Regulatory
Approaches, 53 UCLA L. REV. 1435, 1460 (2006).1

22



Total settlement amount;

23



Total amount of claims paid, expressed in dollars and as a percentage of the total

24
25
26
27
28

1

Counsel are referred to further discussion on these issues in Nicholas M. Pace and William
Rubenstein, “Shedding Light on Outcomes in Class Actions,” in CONFIDENTIALITY,
TRANSPARENCY, AND THE U.S. CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, Ch. 2 (Joseph W. Doherty, Robert T.
Reville, and Laura Zakaras, eds., Oxford University Press, 2008).
See also In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-md-2420-YGR,
Dkt. Nos. 1981 and 1988.

settlement amount;

1
2



The number of class members who received notice ;

3



The number of actual claims, expressed as a total number and as a percentage of the
number who received notice;

4
5



The number of opt-outs, expressed as a total number and as a percentage of the number
who received notice;

6



7
8

settlement amount, and a percentage of the funds distributed to class members;


9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

class members;


12
13
14
15

The attorney costs and expenses awarded, expressed as a total dollar figure, a
percentage of the total settlement amount, and a percentage of the funds distributed to

10
11

The attorney fees awarded, expressed as a total dollar figure, a percentage of the total

The total class administration costs, expressed as a total dollar figure and a percentage
of the total settlement amount; and



The residual funds, if any, remaining, expressed as a total dollar figure and a
percentage of the total settlement amount.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 22, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Appendix A