Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525-43/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE FLEURY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-4525 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF FLEURY’S

SUBMISSION OF MARCH 18, 2008

On March 17, 2008, Plaintiff Andre Fleury had his attorney file a notice of appearance

before this Court. Counsel on the same day filed objections to the proposed class settlement on the

behalf of Mr. Fleury as well as Sacha Fleury. The very next day, on March 18, 2008, the Court

received a submission from Mr. Fleury directly, and not his counsel. Because Mr. Fleury is now

represented, it will not accept any communication from Mr. Fleury directly and will accept only

communications from his counsel. The Court therefore shall return Mr. Fleury’s submission to Mr.

Fleury. 

The Court notes, for the benefit of Mr. Fleury’s counsel as well as Defendant, that, in his

submission, Mr. Fleury states that he is opting out of the case. If Mr. Fleury wishes to opt out, he is

free to do so (subject to the opt-out procedure set forth in this Court’s order of November 28, 2007);

should that occur, then his previously filed objections will be deemed comments by an amicus curiae

and not as a party. See, e.g., In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006); Shakman v. City of

Chicago, No. 69 C 2145, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36506, at *9 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2007). Mr. Fleury

also provided as part of his submission documents allegedly establishing that 300 other watchmakers

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 225 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 4
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

wish to opt out. The Court does not express any opinion as to whether any of the alleged opt-outs by

the 300 watchmakers are proper. It does note, however, that the proper procedure for opting out was

covered by the Court’s order of November 28, 2007. See Docket No. 200, Exs. A-B.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 225 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE FLEURY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________

____/

No. C-05-4525 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Andre Fleury

523 Fourth Street

San Rafael, CA 94901 (W/ENCLOSURE)

3/18/08 letter and

attachment

Dated: March 21, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 225 Filed 03/21/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 225 Filed 03/21/08 Page 4 of 4