Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03514-21/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TABLEWARE ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No C-04-3514 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege that May

Department Stores Co (“May”) and Federated Department Stores, Inc

(“Federated”), which operate department stores across the United

States, and Lenox, Inc (“Lenox”) and Waterford Wedgwood, USA

(“Waterford”), both of which produce fine tableware sold in the

United States, conspired with one another to boycott Bed, Bath and

Beyond, a competitor of May and Federated. 

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Lenox on February

22, 2007, Doc #301, ¶ 6, and now seek preliminary approval of

various aspects of the settlement. In particular, plaintiffs seek:

(1) preliminary approval of the settlement reached by the parties;

(2) approval of the proposed form of notice; (3) establishment of a

schedule for class members to object to the settlement and (4) a

hearing on final approval of the settlement at which class members

may be heard. Doc #300. 

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

On March 13, 2007, the court certified the following

litigation class pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3):

All persons who purchased in the United States from

Federated or May Department Stores Lenox Tableware

during the period October 1, 2001 through October

31, 2003 or Waterford Wedgwood Tableware during the

period October 1, 2001 through April 30, 2005 (the

“Class Period”). Excluded from the Class are all

employees, officers, directors or agents (including

attorneys) of any defendant, as well as any judge,

justice or judicial officer presiding over this

matter, and each such person’s immediate family.

“Lenox Tableware” includes Lenox, Gorham and Kate

Spade brand dinnerware (china), crystal stemware,

glassware, flatware (sterling and stainless), and

giftware. 

“Waterford Wedgwood Tableware” includes Waterford,

Marquis by Waterford, Wedgwood, Vera Wang, Johnson

Brothers, and Franciscan brand dinnerware (china),

crystal stemware, glassware, flatware (sterling and

stainless), and giftware. 

“Federated Department Stores” includes Macy’s and

Bloomingdale’s, Rich’s, Lazarus, Goldsmith’s,

Burdine’s and the Bon Marche. 

“May Department Stores” includes May, Famous-Barr

(including L S Ayers and The Jones Store),

Filene’s, Foley’s, Hecht’s, Kaufmann’s, Meier &

Frank, Robinsons-May and Strawbridge’s. 

Doc #287. The court also granted plaintiffs’ request for

appointment of counsel pursuant to FRCP 23(g). Id. As plaintiffs’

proposed settlement class is identical to the certified litigation

class, the court certifies the Lenox settlement class for reasons

discussed in the court’s March 13, 2007, order. See Doc #287.

 The proposed settlement agreement provides that Lenox

will pay $500,000 in cash into a fund to be distributed to class

members. Doc #301, Ex A, ¶ 15. The settlement also authorizes the

use of a maximum of $200,000 of the settlement fund for notice and

administrative costs. Id, ¶ 18(a). 

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The question currently before the court is whether this

settlement should be preliminarily approved. 

“[The] preliminary determination establishes an initial

presumption of fairness * * *.” In re General Motors

Corp, 55 F3d 768, 784 (3d Cir 1995) (emphasis added). As

noted in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Second, “[i]f

the proposed settlement appears to be the product of

serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no

obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant

preferential treatment to class representatives or

segments of the class, and falls within the range of

possible approval, then the court should direct that the

notice be given to the class members of a formal fairness

hearing * * *.” Manual for Complex Litigation, Second §

30.44 (1985). In addition, “[t]he court may find that

the settlement proposal contains some merit, is within

the range of reasonableness required for a settlement

offer, or is presumptively valid.” Newberg on Class

Actions § 11.25 (1992).

Schwartz v Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd, 157 F Supp 2d 561,

570 n12 (ED Pa 2001). In other words, preliminary approval of a

settlement has both a procedural and a substantive component. 

The court concurs with plaintiffs’ counsel that the

procedure for reaching this settlement was fair and reasonable and

that the settlement was the product of arms-length negotiations. 

Doc #301, ¶ 9. Experienced counsel on both sides, each with a

comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each

party’s respective claims and defenses, negotiated this settlement

over an extended period of time during 2006. Doc #301, ¶¶ 5, 6, 9.

The substantive fairness and adequacy of the settlement

confirms this view of the fair procedures used to reach the

settlement. To evaluate adequacy, courts primarily consider

plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the

settlement offer. See Armstrong, 616 F2d at 314; Grunin v Int'l

House of Pancakes, 513 F2d 114, 124 (8th Cir 1974). The settlement

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

consideration seems reasonable under this standard, particularly in

light of the court’s subsequent order granting Waterford’s motion

for summary judgment. Doc #286 at 32:8-9. Based on this risk and

the anticipated expense and complexity of further litigation, the

court cannot say that the proposed settlement is obviously

deficient or is not “within the range of possible approval.” 

Schwartz, 157 F Supp 2d at 570 n12. 

The court next takes up the form of notice. Plaintiffs

request that a single comprehensive notice be disseminated to the

class regarding both the litigation and the Lenox settlement class. 

Doc #300 at 1-2. The court supports consolidation, as multiple

notices to members of the class would likely confuse the class and

cause plaintiffs to incur unnecessary expenses. Plaintiffs propose

that a “short form notice,” see Doc #302, Ex A, be published in USA

Today. Also, in addition to plaintiffs’ dedicated website,

www.tablewarelitigation.com, plaintiffs intend to publish notice at

www.theknot.com, the most trafficked website related to wedding

planning. Doc #300 at 5. As discussed at the hearing on the

present motion, magazine publication will not be possible in light

of the June 11, 2007, trial date and, in any event, would appear to

add little by way of alerting class members to their rights to

object to this settlement or opt out of the class. In the unlikely

scenario that a sizable number of class members decide to opt out

of the litigation, the court will consider requiring further

publication.

Because defendants do not have a list of potential class

members, Doc #301, ¶ 2, the court agrees with plaintiffs that

notice by publication is the only reasonable method of informing

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

class members of the pending class action and the Lenox settlement. 

See FRCP 23(c)(2)(B) (class members entitled to the “best notice

practicable under the circumstances”); see also Manual for Complex

Litigation (4th ed 2004) § 21.311 (“Publication in magazines,

newspapers, or trade journals may be necessary if class members are

not identifiable after reasonable effort”). Accordingly, the court

APPROVES the proposed form of notice, as to both form and content.

In sum, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for 

provisional certification of the settlement class and confirms

Saveri & Saveri, Inc; Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette; Furth

Lehmann & Grant LLP; The Law Firm of Joseph M Alioto; and The Law

Offices of Randy Renick as class counsel and Scott Young and Tami

Galindo as class representatives. Additionally, the court ORDERS

the following schedule for further proceedings:

Date Event

On or before April 30, 2007 Publication in USA Today

June 7, 2007 Deadline to postmark objections or

opt out

July 19, 2007

Deadline for filing briefing in

support of final approval of

settlement

August 9, 2007 Hearing on final approval of

settlement

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

At the final approval hearing on August 9, 2007, at 2:00

pm, the court will determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement

should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the merits

of objections, if any, made to the settlement or any of its terms;

(3) the amount of litigation costs, expenses and attorney fees, if

any, that should be awarded to class counsel; and (4) other matters

related to the settlement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03514-VRW Document 306 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 6