Ferrington et al v. McAfee, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER Regarding Edits to Proposed Class Notice. Signed by Judge LHK on 8/4/2011. CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 91 .(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

SAN JOSE DIVISION
MELISSA FERRINGTON and CHERYL
SCHMIDT,
v.
McAFEE, INC.,
Defendant.

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-001455-LHK
ORDER REGARDING EDITS TO
PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

As discussed at the preliminary fairness hearing on the proposed settlement in this action,
the Court asks that the Parties take the following actions by August 11, 2011:
1)

Inform the Court whether Defendants have a database of Class Members’ street

13

addresses. If so, the parties are to amend ¶ 2 of the Proposed Order to include a provision that a

14

summary notice will be mailed to the street addresses of those Class Members’ whose email

15

servers bounce back the Summary Email Notice.

16
17
18

2)

Clarify that the Summary Email Notice will contain a link to the dedicated website

identified in ¶ 2 of the Proposed Order.
3)

In ¶ 2 of the Proposed Order, propose language for the “re:” line in the Summary

19

Email Notice that makes a good faith effort of avoiding interception by spam filters and being

20

ignored by class members.

21

4)

In the second paragraph of Joint Statement, clarify that class members may make

22

claims for “$5 per month for each month the claimant paid or prepaid Arpu’s charges up to a

23

maximum of $30; or (2) a license for the current version of McAfee Family Protection for a

24

limited amount of time.” Nugent Decl. Ex. G.

25

5)

On page 2 of the Notice, the parties should clarify that submitting a claim form is

26

“The only way to get cash reimbursement or a software license through this lawsuit settlement,”

27

and that if Class Members ask to be excluded, they “Keep rights to sue McAfee or Arpu on [their]

28

own and seek a recovery through litigation.” Nugent Decl. Ex. B2.

Case No.: 10-CV-01455-LHK
ORDER REGARDING EDITS TO PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

6)

On page 8 of the Notice, the parties should clarify that the lawyers can seek up to

$350,000 or 29.2 % of the total amount that can be claimed. Id.
(7)

Harmonize the language explaining cash payments to the Class Members in the

Claim Form, Nugent Decl. Ex. A, at 1, with the language in the Notice, Nugent Decl. Ex. B2, at 1.
(8)

Clarify in all relevant documents that proof of payment is not required for making a

valid claim, if a Class Member can establish his or her identity to the Claims Administrator and
provide an email address or street address that matches Arpu’s database.
(9)

Specify in all relevant documents that the total amount that can be claimed by all

Class Members is $1.2 million.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 10-CV-01455-LHK
ORDER REGARDING EDITS TO PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE