In a class action lawsuit against a manufacturer for falsely overstating in advertising and packaging the storage capacity of computer disc drives that it manufactures for public sale, trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a class member’s objections and approving a settlement as there are no facts that show the parties engaged in any collusion or improper conduct. However, the matter is vacated and remanded to correct the class definition to unambiguously state that indirect purchasers of new Seagate disc drives are members of the plaintiff class and to renotice the settlement in order to give adequate notice to all class members, and allow for additional claims, objections or opt outs.
Read Cho v. Seagate Tech. Holdings, Inc., No. A121623
Filed September 15, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Siggins
Counsel
For Plaintiff and Respondent: Brian R. Strange, Gretchen Carpenter, Adam J. Gutride, Seth A. Safier.
For Defendant and Respondent: Peter S. Hecker, Neil A.F. Popovic, Dylan Ballard.
For Objector and Appellant: Charles D. Chalmers
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
