Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 554 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 37 1 Eric L. Cramer (Pro Hac Vice) Michael Dell’Angelo (Pro Hac Vice) 2 Patrick F. Madden (Pro Hac Vice) Mark R. Suter (Pro Hac Vice) 3 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 4 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 5 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 6 [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 [email protected] 9 Co-Lead Counsel for the Classes and Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs 10 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Luis Javier 11 Vazquez, Brandon Vera, and Kyle Kingsbury 12 (Additional counsel appear on signature page) 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL 16 Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 17 situated, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 21 Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PUBLIC COPY - REDACTED Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 554 Filed 05/30/18 Page 2 of 37 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 3 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3 4 A. Zuffa Misstates the Rule 23 Standards ................................................................... 3 5 B. Evidence of the Antitrust Violation Is Entirely Common and Will Predominate .. 4 6 C. Zuffa Fails to Rebut Plaintiffs’ Showing of Common Impact................................ 6 7 Dr. Singer’s Use of Wage Share Is Proper. ................................................ 7 8 Dr. Singer’s Use of Foreclosure Share Is Proper. ...................................... 9 9 Dr. Singer Shows Common Impact Based on a Pay Structure. ............... 12 10 D. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Class Claims .............................................. 16 11 E. Plaintiffs Satisfy the Adequacy Requirement ....................................................... 19 12 F. Plaintiffs’ Showing Complies with Comcast ....................................................... 21 13 G. Class Litigation Is Superior to Individual Actions ............................................... 23 14 H. Common Issues Predominate for the Identity Class ............................................ 24 15 I. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief .............................................. 25 16 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PUBLIC COPY - REDACTED Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 554 Filed 05/30/18 Page 3 of 37 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Alexander v. JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 4 237 F.R.D. 628 (D. Mont. 2006) .......................................................................................................... 19 5 Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 6 279 F.R.D. 257 (D. Vt. 2011) ............................................................................................................... 20 7 Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 5:09-cv-230, 2012 WL 5844871 (D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2012) .......................................................... 4, 21 8 Allen v. Holiday Universal, 9 249 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Pa. 2008) ........................................................................................................... 19 10 Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp. L.P., 11 247 F.R.D. 156 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................................................... 4 12 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) ....................................................................................................................... 3, 4, 5 13 Backus v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 14 No. C 16-00454, 2016 WL 7406505 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) ................................................... 17, 18 15 Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, 16 270 F.R.D. 488 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................................... 19, 25 17 Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 25 18 Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 19 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................................... 6 20 Blackie v. Barrack, 21 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................................................ 20 22 Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 300 F.R.D. 431 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ......................................................................................................... 24 23 Braintree Labs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 24 No. 11-80233, 2011 WL 5025096 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011) .............................................................. 20 25 Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 134 F. Supp. 3d 820 (D.N.J. 2015)....................................................................................................... 11 26 27 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) ......................................................................................................................... 21, 22 28 ii Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PUBLIC COPY - REDACTED Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 554 Filed 05/30/18 Page 4 of 37 1 Edmonds v. Levine, 233 F.R.D. 638 (S.D. Fla. 2006) .......................................................................................................... 18 2 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 3 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................ 3, 17 4 Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 5 No. 02-cv-4911, 2003 WL 21659373 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2003) .......................................................... 17 6 Fleischman v. Albany Med. Ctr., No. 1:06-cv-765, 2008 WL 2945993 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ....................................................................... 15 7 Free World Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Alfa Romeo, S.p.A., 8 55 F.R.D. 26 (S.D.N.Y 1972) ............................................................................................................... 20 9 Fujita v. Sumitomo Bank of Cal., 10 70 F.R.D. 406 (N.D. Cal. 1975) ........................................................................................................... 19 11 Gilkey v. Cent. Clearing Co., 202 F.R.D. 515 (E.D. Mich. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 18 12 Growers 1-7 v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 13 No. 12-12016, 2016 WL 10849499 (D. Mass. May 10, 2016) .............................................................. 4 14 Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 15 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................................................... 16, 17 16 Haro v. Sebelius, 747 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................................. 25 17 Herrera v. LCS Fin. Servs. Corp., 18 274 F.R.D. 666 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................................... 17 19 In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-1175, 2014 WL 7882100 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2004) ......................................................... 12 20 21 In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 13-MD-2437, 2017 WL 3700999 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2017) ............................................................... 19 22 In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 23 253 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ......................................................................................................... 16 24 In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................................................................ 9, 14 25 In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litig., 26 No. 13-cv-04115, 2017 WL 235052 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) ........................................................... 17 27 In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 28 311 F.R.D. 532 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................................. passim iii Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PUBLIC COPY - REDACTED Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 554 Filed 05/30/18 Page 5 of 37 1 In re NCAA I-A Walk On Football Players Litig., No. 04-cv-1254, 2006 WL 1207915 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2006) .......................................................... 6 2 In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 3 No. 09-cv-1967, 2013 WL 5979327 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) .............................................................. 6 4 In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust