Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and a class representative enhancement payment. Dkt. Nos. 161, 162. The [*2]  Court held a final fairness hearing on February 20, 2020. Dkt. No. 164. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS final approval. The Court also GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and enhancement payment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer bring this consumer class action against Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD"), alleging that Defendant engaged in deceptive practices when it purportedly misrepresented the number of central processing units ("CPUs") in its "Bulldozer Processors." See generally Dkt. No. 94 ("Second Amended Complaint" or "SAC"). According to Plaintiffs, AMD consistently advertised the Bulldozer Processors as having eight cores to outmatch its competitors. SAC ¶¶ 30-32. However, the Bulldozer Processors allegedly did not have eight cores, because the "cores" were actually sub-processors that could not operate and simultaneously multitask as "actual cores." Id. ¶¶ 24-29, 38. Plaintiffs contend that had they known the CPUs did not have eight-core capabilities, they would not have purchased the processors. Id. ¶¶ 55, 63.

Based on these facts, the SAC asserts [*3]  the following six causes of action: (1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (3) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; (4) fraud in the inducement; (5) breach of express warranties; and (6) negligent misrepresentation. SAC ¶¶ 76-147.

On April 7, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte granted the motion on April 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 46. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff Dickey and newly-added Plaintiff Parmer filed their first amended complaint, removing the claim for unjust enrichment while realleging all the other causes of action. See generally Dkt. No. 50. Defendant again moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, and Judge Whyte granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 71. The case was reassigned to this Court on November 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 72. Plaintiffs filed the operative SAC on November 21, 2016, and Defendant moved to dismiss. Dkt. No. 78. The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, but otherwise denied the motion. Dkt. No. 96.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.