Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04525-36/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 OCTOBER 17, 2007

HEARING

On October 17, 2007, the Court held a hearing on a joint motion for preliminary approval

filed by Defendant Richemont North America, Inc. and Plaintiffs Mike Mertaban, Dennis Warner,

Charles Cleves, and Liz Hart. This order is intended to memorialize the rulings made at the hearing.

A. Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval

In order for the Court to assess the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed

settlement, the Court is need of additional briefing and evidence. For example:

• An explanation as to why that a watchmaker may only apply to be part of Defendant’s

authorized repair network within the six months from the date of final Court approval. See

Stip. of Settlement ¶ 1.21.

• A copy of the evaluation form. See Stip. of Settlement ¶ 2.1(b)-(c).

• An explanation as to (1) why Richemont should retain “sole discretion to determine whether

a Watchmaker Applicant meets the criteria set forth in the Evaluation Form,” Stip. of

Settlement ¶ 2.1(c), and (2) whether, in light of this provision, a watchmaker would be barred

from arguing that Richemont implemented the evaluation form in bad faith.

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 176 Filed 10/17/07 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

• Evidence that authorized dealers, repair shops, or service centers are required to have

Cartier-specific tools.

• Evidence as to what the Cartier-specific tools are.

• An explanation as to what additional tools watchmakers may be required to purchase in the

future. See Stip. of Settlement ¶ 2.2(a) (“Defendant shall bear 75% of the initial cost of

Cartier-specific tooling . . . .”) (emphasis added).

• Evidence of the price normally paid for Cartier-specific tools and parts.

• An explanation as to what standards a qualified watchmaker applicant would be held to in

the future should be provided. See Stip. of Settlement ¶ 2.1(f) (providing that qualified

applicants “shall be required to meet and adhere to the same standards of quality,

performance and training as are required of existing authorized dealers or repair shops

generally, failing which they may, in the ordinary course, be terminated from the authorized

repair network”). If there are any written guidelines, they should be submitted.

• Evidence as to the average cost of consumer repairs.

• An explanation as to what kind of reporting mechanism should be included as part of the

proposed settlement (e.g., so that an assessment can be made as to how many watchmakers

and consumers participated in the class action).

• Details as to what specific discovery has been conducted in the case, including what

information was found to change either side’s evaluation of the case.

• Information as to Richemont’s defenses.

• Specific information as to the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s position.

The parties who filed the joint motion shall provide additional briefing and evidence in

support of their motion by October 26, 2007. Mr. Fleury shall have until November 2, 2007, to

respond to the supplemental briefing and evidence.

B. Mr. Fleury’s Website

Mr. Fleury is hereby ordered to post the disclaimer previously ordered by the Court, see

Docket No. 135 (order, dated 8/15/07), on each and every page of the websites that he maintains that

relate to any aspect of this litigation or its proposed settlement. This includes but is not limited to

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 176 Filed 10/17/07 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

the website www.andre-fleury.com. The disclaimer must be posted on the websites by 11:59 p.m.,

October 17, 2007. Mr. Fleury risks sanctions if he fails to do so.

In addition, Mr. Fleury is ordered to submit to the Court for in camera review a copy of any

and all responses he received to the websites. The submission shall be made by October 26, 2007. 

The Court shall determine whether further action is needed after reviewing the submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 176 Filed 10/17/07 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

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

Dated: October 17, 2007 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-04525-EMC Document 176 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 4