! )Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN — 315962) 9 ||rbalabanian@edelson.com Todd Logan (SBN — 305912) 3 ||tlogan@edelson.com EDELSON PC 4 ||123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 5 San Francisco, California 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 6 ||Fax: 415.373.9495 7 ||Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 1] TONY DICKEY and PAUL PARMER, Case No. 4:15-cv-04922-HSG 12 individually and on behalf of all others B similarly situated, STIPULATED FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vy. 16 || ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., i7|| 2 Delaware corporation, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 This matter came before the Court for hearing on February 20, 2020. The Court has 2 ||considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 162, |{including the class action settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement’) between Plaintiffs 4 ||Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer on behalf of themselves and all members of the Settlement Class 5 ||(the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (“Defendant”) attached as Exhibit 6 |{1 to the Motion, Dkt. 162-3, together with all exhibits thereto, the arguments and authorities 7 ||presented by the Parties and their counsel, as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and ||Costs and Class Representative Incentive Awards, Dkt. 161, together with all exhibits thereto. 9 10 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 11 1. Terms and phrases in this Final Order and Judgment shall have the same meaning 12 |\as ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. 13 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties and the Settlement Class 14 ||Members, venue is proper, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement 15 ||Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, and to enter this Final Order and Judgment. 16 3. The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the ||Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order and consisting of individual notice via 18 first-class U.S. Mail postcard and/or email to the Settlement Class, publication notice, a |jcomprehensive digital media campaign, an interactive settlement website, and a toll-free hotline 20 ||has been successful and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and: (1) ||constituted notice that was reasonably calculated to, under all circumstances, apprise Settlement 22 ||Class Members of the pendency of the Litigation, the certification of the Class, the terms of the 23 ||Agreement, and the right of members to object to the Settlement or to exclude themselves from the 24 ||Settlement Class; (2) complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 25 ||Due Process Clause; and (3) constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances. 26 4. The Court finds that the appropriate government officials were properly and timely 27 |\notified of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 28 |/(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court has reviewed the substance of this notice and finds that it
1 |{complied with all applicable requirements of CAFA. Further, more than ninety (90) days have 2 |/elapsed since notice was provided pursuant to CAFA and the Final Approval Hearing. 3 5. This Court now gives final approval to the settlement and finds that the Settlement 4 ||Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The 5 |{settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement of $12,100,000 constitutes fair 6 ||value given to in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Persons. 7 ||Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within 10 business days of the entry of Final Approval, ||Defendant shall pay or caused to be paid the final Settlement Payment to the Settlement Fund. The 9 ||Court finds that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class is reasonable and 10 |jin the best interests of the Settlement Class Members considering the disputed facts and 11 ||circumstances of and affirmative defenses asserted in the Litigation and the potential risks and 12 ||likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of ||this case, the amount of discovery completed, and the fact that the Settlement is the result of 14 |/arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties, including negotiations presided over by the 15 ||Honorable James F. Holderman, a former Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois support 16 ||this finding. The Court finds that these facts, in addition to the Court’s observations throughout the |jlitigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion present in the reaching of the Settlement 18 ||Agreement, implicit or otherwise. See /n re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 19 1/947 (9th Cir. 2011). This finding is also supported by, among other things, the fact that the 20 ||Settlement provides substantial monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members and such benefits 21 |{are not disproportionate to the attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel or the 22 ||Plaintiffs; and the benefits provided to Settlement Class Members are appropriate under the _||circumstances of this case. 24 6. The Court has specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement 25 |lapproval (see, e.g., Churchill Vill, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004))—including, |linter alia, the strength of Plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of ||\further litigation; the risk of not maintaining class action status throughout trial; the relief provided ||for in the settlement; the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings; the
1 |/experience and views of counsel; and the reaction of the Settlement Class Members to the 2 ||proposed settlement and upon consideration of such factors finds that the Settlement 1s fair, 3 ||reasonable, and adequate to all concerned. 4 7. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the 5 ||Parties are hereby directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to 6 |lits terms and provisions. 7 8. Six (6) individuals have requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and the ||settlement of this matter: Jonathan Barrett, Justin Brubaker, Adriel Douglass, Christopher Galliart, 9 ||Virginia A. Macgowan, Matthew B. Nelson. Accordingly, this Final Order and Judgment shall not 10 |/bind or affect those individuals. 11 9. The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of this Final Order and Judgment, 12 |{including all exhibits thereto, shall be forever binding in all pending and future lawsuits 13 |/maintained by the Named Plaintiffs and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as their ||family members, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns. 15 10. The Releases are effective as of the Final Settlement Date and the Released Persons 16 |jare forever released, relinquished, and discharged by the Releasing Persons from all Released 17 |/Claims. 18 11. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for attorneys’ fees of $3,025,000 19 |land expenses of $47,517.37 to Class Counsel and adjudges that these payments are fair and ||reasonable for the following reasons and those stated in Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
! )Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN — 315962) 9 ||rbalabanian@edelson.com Todd Logan (SBN — 305912) 3 ||tlogan@edelson.com EDELSON PC 4 ||123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 5 San Francisco, California 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 6 ||Fax: 415.373.9495 7 ||Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 1] TONY DICKEY and PAUL PARMER, Case No. 4:15-cv-04922-HSG 12 individually and on behalf of all others B similarly situated, STIPULATED FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vy. 16 || ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., i7|| 2 Delaware corporation, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 This matter came before the Court for hearing on February 20, 2020. The Court has 2 ||considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 162, |{including the class action settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement’) between Plaintiffs 4 ||Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer on behalf of themselves and all members of the Settlement Class 5 ||(the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (“Defendant”) attached as Exhibit 6 |{1 to the Motion, Dkt. 162-3, together with all exhibits thereto, the arguments and authorities 7 ||presented by the Parties and their counsel, as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and ||Costs and Class Representative Incentive Awards, Dkt. 161, together with all exhibits thereto. 9 10 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 11 1. Terms and phrases in this Final Order and Judgment shall have the same meaning 12 |\as ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. 13 2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties and the Settlement Class 14 ||Members, venue is proper, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Settlement 15 ||Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, and to enter this Final Order and Judgment. 16 3. The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the ||Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order and consisting of individual notice via 18 first-class U.S. Mail postcard and/or email to the Settlement Class, publication notice, a |jcomprehensive digital media campaign, an interactive settlement website, and a toll-free hotline 20 ||has been successful and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and: (1) ||constituted notice that was reasonably calculated to, under all circumstances, apprise Settlement 22 ||Class Members of the pendency of the Litigation, the certification of the Class, the terms of the 23 ||Agreement, and the right of members to object to the Settlement or to exclude themselves from the 24 ||Settlement Class; (2) complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 25 ||Due Process Clause; and (3) constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances. 26 4. The Court finds that the appropriate government officials were properly and timely 27 |\notified of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 28 |/(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715. The Court has reviewed the substance of this notice and finds that it
1 |{complied with all applicable requirements of CAFA. Further, more than ninety (90) days have 2 |/elapsed since notice was provided pursuant to CAFA and the Final Approval Hearing. 3 5. This Court now gives final approval to the settlement and finds that the Settlement 4 ||Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The 5 |{settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement of $12,100,000 constitutes fair 6 ||value given to in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Persons. 7 ||Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within 10 business days of the entry of Final Approval, ||Defendant shall pay or caused to be paid the final Settlement Payment to the Settlement Fund. The 9 ||Court finds that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class is reasonable and 10 |jin the best interests of the Settlement Class Members considering the disputed facts and 11 ||circumstances of and affirmative defenses asserted in the Litigation and the potential risks and 12 ||likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of ||this case, the amount of discovery completed, and the fact that the Settlement is the result of 14 |/arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties, including negotiations presided over by the 15 ||Honorable James F. Holderman, a former Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois support 16 ||this finding. The Court finds that these facts, in addition to the Court’s observations throughout the |jlitigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion present in the reaching of the Settlement 18 ||Agreement, implicit or otherwise. See /n re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 19 1/947 (9th Cir. 2011). This finding is also supported by, among other things, the fact that the 20 ||Settlement provides substantial monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members and such benefits 21 |{are not disproportionate to the attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel or the 22 ||Plaintiffs; and the benefits provided to Settlement Class Members are appropriate under the _||circumstances of this case. 24 6. The Court has specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement 25 |lapproval (see, e.g., Churchill Vill, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004))—including, |linter alia, the strength of Plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of ||\further litigation; the risk of not maintaining class action status throughout trial; the relief provided ||for in the settlement; the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings; the
1 |/experience and views of counsel; and the reaction of the Settlement Class Members to the 2 ||proposed settlement and upon consideration of such factors finds that the Settlement 1s fair, 3 ||reasonable, and adequate to all concerned. 4 7. Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally approved in all respects, and the 5 ||Parties are hereby directed to implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to 6 |lits terms and provisions. 7 8. Six (6) individuals have requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and the ||settlement of this matter: Jonathan Barrett, Justin Brubaker, Adriel Douglass, Christopher Galliart, 9 ||Virginia A. Macgowan, Matthew B. Nelson. Accordingly, this Final Order and Judgment shall not 10 |/bind or affect those individuals. 11 9. The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of this Final Order and Judgment, 12 |{including all exhibits thereto, shall be forever binding in all pending and future lawsuits 13 |/maintained by the Named Plaintiffs and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as their ||family members, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns. 15 10. The Releases are effective as of the Final Settlement Date and the Released Persons 16 |jare forever released, relinquished, and discharged by the Releasing Persons from all Released 17 |/Claims. 18 11. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for attorneys’ fees of $3,025,000 19 |land expenses of $47,517.37 to Class Counsel and adjudges that these payments are fair and ||reasonable for the following reasons and those stated in Court. In assessing the requested 21 |{attorneys’ fees, the Court has considered the relief achieved for the Settlement Class Members, the 22 ||time and effort devoted by Class Counsel as demonstrated by their sworn declaration and the 23 ||complexity of the legal and factual issues involved. The Court finds that the Attorneys’ Fees and ||Expenses awarded to Class Counsel identified above is fair and reasonable under both a common 25 _||fund approach and a lodestar approach. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1048-50 26 ||(9th Cir. 2002) (finding in this Circuit, a 25% fee is the accepted “benchmark” in common fund |\cases); Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (lodestar approach). 28
1 12. The Court has also considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and supporting declarations for 2 ||Incentive Awards. The Court adjudges that the payment of an incentive award in the amount of 3 ||$5,000 to each of the Class Representatives in this case, to compensate them for their efforts and 4 ||commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class, is fair, reasonable, and justified under the 5 ||circumstances of this case. See Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 6 |/2013). The Court further adjudges that the payment of Plaintiff Tony Dickey’s litigation costs in |\the amount of $2,482.85 is reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Such payments shall 8 _||be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 9 ||The Court also approves the sum of $668,031.57 to be paid to Angeion, the Settlement 10 ||Admuinistrator, for notice and administrative costs to be paid from the Settlement Fund. 11 13. Neither the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms and provisions, nor any of 12 ||the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, nor any of the documents or statements referred |/to therein, nor this Final Order and Judgment, nor any of its terms and provisions, shall be: 14 (a) offered by any person or received against the Defendant as evidence or 15 |/|construed as or deemed to be evidence of any presumption, concession, or admission by the 16 ||Defendant of the truth of the facts alleged by any person or the validity of any claim that has been {jor could have been asserted in this Litigation or in any litigation, or other judicial or administrative ||proceeding, or the deficiency of any defense that has been or could have been asserted in this 19 ||Litigation or in any litigation, or of any liability, negligence, fault or wrongdoing of the 20 ||Defendant; 21 (b) offered by any person or received against the Defendant as evidence of a 22 ||presumption, concession, or admission of any fault, misrepresentation, or omission with respect to ||any statement or written document approved or made by the Defendant or any other wrongdoing 24 ||by the Defendant; 25 (c) offered by any person or received against the Defendant as evidence of a 26 ||presumption, concession, or admission with respect to any liability, negligence, fault, or ||wrongdoing in any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding; 28
1 (d) offered by any person or received against Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class 2 |/as an admission of or evidence that any of the Settlement Class Members’ claims are with or 3 without merit; or 4 (e) offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding against any 5 ||Party hereto in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal for any purpose whatsoever, 6 |/other than to enforce or otherwise effectuate the Settlement Agreement (or any agreement or order |/relating thereto), including the Releases, or the Final Order and Judgment. 8 14. This Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement Agreement (including the 9 |lexhibits thereto) may be filed in any action against or by any Released Person (as that term is 10 |/defined herein and the Settlement Agreement) to support a defense of res judicata, collateral 11 |lestoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or any theory of claim 12 ||preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. 13 15. Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members who have not opted out of the 14 ||Agreement are barred from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in (as 15 |/class members or otherwise) any action in any jurisdiction based on or relating to any of the 16 |/Released Claims or the facts and circumstances relating thereto. Further, Plaintiff and all ||Settlement Class Members who have not opted out of the settlement are barred from organizing 18 ||Settlement Class Members, or soliciting the participation of Settlement Class Members, in a 19 ||separate class for purposes of pursuing any action (including by seeking to amend a pending 20 ||complaint to include class allegations, or seeking class certification in a pending action in any ||jurisdiction) based on or relating to any of the Released Claims or the facts and circumstances ||relating thereto. 23 16. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonably ||necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 25 17. Judgment is hereby ENTERED for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 ||58 and 79, and the time period for filing any notice of appeal shall commence on the date of entry |\of this Final Order and Judgment. Without affecting the finality of this Final Order and Judgment, ||the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation,
1 |/consummation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, including 2 ||jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate. 3 18. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Final Order and Judgment to all 4 |{counsel of record and to CLOSE this case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 |IDATED: 2/28/2020 Maurya ZB Ai). HON. JUDGE HAYWOOD S. GILL □ IR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28