Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02058/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02058-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

Crago, d/b/a/ Dash Computers, Inc., et al. v. 

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, et al., Case 

No. 14-cv-2058 JST

 MDL No. 1917

Master Case No. C-07-5944 JST

Case No. 14-cv-2058 JST

ORDER REGARDING DIRECT 

PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ 

SETTLEMENT WITH THOMSON 

DEFENDANTS

Currently before the Court is the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Action Settlement with Thomson Defendants, ECF No. 4091. The motion does not contain 

information concerning the total likely recovery by the class if Plaintiffs were to prevail at trial. 

The motion for preliminary approval, ECF No. 3562 (granted at ECF No. 3872), also did not 

contain this information. Thus, it is difficult for the Court to evaluate the adequacy and fairness of 

the proposed settlement. 

The Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements

(available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance) provides that any 

motion for preliminary approval should contain information including “[t]he likely recovery per 

plaintiff under the terms of the settlement and the potential recovery if plaintiffs were to prevail on 

each of their claims.” See also, e.g., In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1042 

(N.D. Cal. 2008) (considering amount of settlement compared to plaintiffs’ potential recovery at 

trial). 

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-02058-JST Document 76 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Settling Plaintiffs are ordered to file a supplemental brief addressing this factor by 

December 1, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02058-JST Document 76 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 2