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
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document110 Filed11/26/14 Page1 of 33 1 DANIEL L. WARSHAW (Bar No. 185365) [email protected] 2 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 3 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 4 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 5 JAMES J. PIZZIRUSSO (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 6 HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K Street NW 7 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 8 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 10 [Additional counsel listed on signature pages] 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 IN RE: WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP. CASE NO. 12-CV-0559-RS DIGITAL DOWNLOADS LITIGATION 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 16 ACTION SETTLEMENT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 17 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450 Date: January 8, 2015 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP Time: 1:30 p.m. 18 Crtrm.: 3, 17th Floor Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 861239.3 1 12-CV-0559-RS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document110 Filed11/26/14 Page2 of 33 1 TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 8, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard in the Courtroom of the Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District 4 Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Plaintiffs Kathy Sledge Lightfoot, 5 Ronee Blakley, and Gary Wright (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move the Court, 6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order finally approving the class action 7 settlement in this case. 8 This motion is made on the grounds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and 9 reasonable; that the Notice Plan complied with applicable legal standards; and that the Settlement 10 Class satisfies the requirements for class certification. 11 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of 12 Points and Authorities, the declarations of Class Counsel, the pleadings and papers on file herein, 13 and upon such additional evidence or argument as may be accepted by the Court at or prior to the 14 hearing on this motion. 15 16 DATED: November 26, 2014 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 17 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 18 By: /s/ Daniel L. Warshaw DANIEL L. WARSHAW 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 861239.3 2 12-CV-0559-RS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document110 Filed11/26/14 Page3 of 33 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 4 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 5 II. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................3 6 A. Negotiation of the Settlement .....................................................................................3 7 B. SETTLEMENT TERMS ............................................................................................4 8 1. Past Settlement Relief ....................................................................................4 9 2. Prospective Settlement Relief ........................................................................5 10 3. Release ...........................................................................................................7 11 C. Class Notice ................................................................................................................7 12 D. Claims Administration ...............................................................................................8 13 1. Work Completed To Date ..............................................................................8 14 2. Work To Be Completed If Final Approval Is Granted ...................................9 15 E. Estimated Results .....................................................................................................10 16 1. Claim Forms Associated With Class Contracts ...........................................10 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 17 2. Past Relief Analysis .....................................................................................10 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 18 III. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE ..................................11 19 A. Standard for Final Approval .....................................................................................11 20 B. The Settlement Was Not Procured by Fraud, Overreaching, or Collusion and Is Therefore Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness ...........................................12 21 C. The Settlement Is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable ..................................................13 22 1. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case Compared to the Risk, Expense, 23 Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation ...............................13 24 2. The Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status Throughout the Trial ............14 25 3. The Amount Offered in Settlement ..............................................................14 26 4. The Experience and Views of Counsel ........................................................16 27 5. The Reaction of Class Members to the Settlement ......................................17 28 D. THE NOTICE PLAN COMPLIED WITH APPLICABLE LEGAL 861239.3 i 12-CV-0559-RS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document110 Filed11/26/14 Page4 of 33 1 STANDARDS ..........................................................................................................19 2 1. Implementation of Notice .............................................................................19 3 2. Form and Content of Notice .........................................................................20 4 E. The Claims Process Is Fair, Necessary, and Reasonable .........................................21 5 1. Claim Forms are a Common and Appropriate Feature of Class Action Settlements .......................................................................................21 6 2. The Claim Form Was Simple and Easy To Submit .....................................23 7 F. Claim Forms are Equally Valid For Forward-Looking Relief .................................24 8 IV. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23 ..........25 9 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................26 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 17 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 861239.3 ii 12-CV-0559-RS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Case3:12-cv-00559-RS Document110 Filed11/26/14 Page5 of 33 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 Page(s) CASES 4 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 5 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................................................ 19 6 Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 2, 11, 12 7 8 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................. 11 9 F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records, 10 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 3 11 Kirkorian v. Borelli, 695 F.Supp. 446 (N.D. Cal. 1988) .......................................................................................... 16 12 Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 13 696 F.3d 811 (9th. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 1, 11 14 Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 15 550 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................. 17 16 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 229 U.S. 306 (1950) ................................................................................................................ 19 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 17 44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 18 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................................. 1, 12, 17 19 Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 20 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) ..................................................................................................... 12 21 Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp., 529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................................... 11 22 Weinberger v. Kendrick, 23 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................... 16 24 STATUTES 25 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................................. 2, 19, 20 26 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(2) .............................................................................................................. 1 27 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e) ................................................................................................................