Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division
November 12, 2019, Decided; November 12, 2019, Filed
Case No. 17-cv-02185-BLF
ORDER GRANTING (1) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS
[Re: ECF 214 and 215]
In this is a putative class action, Plaintiffs Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi, Alex Gorbatchev, Brian Christensen, Anthony Martorello, Edward Beheler, Yuriy Davydov, Rebecca Harrison, Zachary Himes, Taylor Jones, Paul Servodio, Justin Leone, James Poore, Jr., and Kenneth Johnston (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege severe defects in their Nexus 6P smartphones. See generally Second Consolidated Am. Class Action Compl. ("SCAC"), ECF 117. Plaintiffs sued the companies that developed the phone — Huawei Device USA, Inc. ("Huawei") and Google [*3] LLC ("Google") (together "Defendants") — and bring seven causes of action for breach of warranty, violation of state laws, and violation of a federal statute.
Two motions are before the Court: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, Appr. Mot, ECF 215, and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, Fees Mot., ECF 214. The Court heard argument on October 10, 2019. For the reasons discussed below and those stated on the record at the hearing on the motions, the motions are GRANTED.
In 2015, Google and Huawei entered into a joint venture to develop, manufacture, market, and sell the Nexus 6P smartphone. SCAC ¶ 75. The Nexus 6P was launched on September 29, 2015, and Google and Huawei touted many of the superior features of the phone. SCAC ¶¶ 101-02. According to Plaintiffs, the Nexus 6P suffers from two defects which manifested shortly after launch. SCAC ¶ 113. First, Plaintiffs allege that some Nexus 6P devices "suffer from accelerated battery drain even when displaying a nearly full charge, freeze, and ultimately fail permanently in an endless rebooting cycle" (the "Bootloop Defect"). SCAC ¶ 113. When the Bootloop [*4] Defect manifests, Plaintiffs allege that the Nexus 6P becomes nonoperational and all unsaved data is lost because the phone cannot proceed beyond the start-up screen. SCAC ¶ 114. Second, Plaintiffs allege that some Nexus 6P devices "experience accelerated battery drain" causing it to "shut off suddenly, and without warning, even when its battery life icon shows that it is charged" (the "Battery Drain Defect"). SCAC ¶ 115. When the Battery Drain Defect manifests, Plaintiffs allege that the Nexus 6P cannot be used as a mobile device because it is only operational if a user keeps the device connected to a power source. SCAC ¶ 117.
Plaintiffs allege that consumers began complaining about the Bootloop and Battery Drain Defects online as early as October 2015, and consumers began to complain directly to Google and Huawei as early as November 2015. SCAC ¶¶ 119-20. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Huawei and Google knew of these defects before selling the Nexus 6P to Plaintiffs and other class members. SCAC ¶¶ 85-112. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Google and Huawei failed to adequately address the defects in the Nexus 6P. SCAC ¶¶ 127-37.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197733 *; 2019 WL 6622842
In re NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Prior History: In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223037 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2017)
settlement, notice, class member, claimants, Plaintiffs', attorney's fees, settlement fund, Battery, class representative, factors, Drain, awards, class action, parties, costs, documentation, discovery, courts, experienced, cases, email, motion to dismiss, distributed, defects, negotiations, approving, lodestar, motions, weighs, class certification