Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04922/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04922-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Defendant
Tony Dickey
Plaintiff
Paul Parmer
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TONY DICKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04922-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 153

Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action 

settlement filed by Plaintiffs Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer. Dkt. No. 153. The parties have 

reached a settlement regarding Plaintiffs’ claims and now seek the required court approval. For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of 

class action settlement.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs bring this consumer class action against Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, 

Inc. (“AMD”), alleging that Defendant engaged in deceptive practices when it purportedly 

misrepresented the number of central processing units (“CPUs”) in its “Bulldozer Processors.” 

See generally Dkt. No. 94 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”). According to Plaintiffs, 

AMD consistently advertised the Bulldozer Processors as having eight cores to outmatch its 

competitors. SAC ¶¶ 30–32. However, the Bulldozer Processors allegedly did not have eight 

cores, because the “cores” were actually sub-processors that could not operate and simultaneously 

multitask as “actual cores.” Id. ¶¶ 24–29, 38. Plaintiffs contend that had they known the CPUs 

did not have eight-core capabilities, they would not have purchased the processors. Id. ¶¶ 55, 63. 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 9
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

Based on those facts, the SAC asserts the following six causes of action: (1) California’s 

Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; (2) California’s Unfair 

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; (3) California’s False Advertising 

Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; (4) fraud in the inducement; (5) breach of express 

warranties; and (6) negligent misrepresentation. SAC ¶¶ 76–147. 

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff Tony Dickey initially filed this action on October 26, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. The 

original complaint asserted the same causes of action as the SAC, plus an additional unjust 

enrichment claim. See generally id. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and the 

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte granted Defendant’s motion on April 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 46. 

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff Dickey and newly-added Plaintiff Paul Parmer filed their first 

amended complaint, removing the claim for unjust enrichment while realleging all the other causes 

of action. See generally Dkt. No. 50. Defendant again moved to dismiss the first amended 

complaint, and Judge Whyte granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Dkt. 

No. 71. The case was reassigned to this Court on November 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 72. Plaintiffs filed 

the operative SAC on November 21, 2016, and Defendant moved to dismiss. Dkt. No. 78. The 

Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, but otherwise 

denied the motion. Dkt. No. 96. 

On March 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 118. The 

Court granted the motion, certifying the following class: 

All individuals who purchased one or more of the following AMD 

computer chips either (1) while residing in California or (2) after 

visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590. 

Dkt. No. 135 at 13. The Court appointed the Named Plaintiffs Dickey and Parmer to represent the 

class and appointed their attorneys at Edelson PC as Class Counsel. Id. On January 31, 2019, 

Defendant filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the Court’s class 

certification order, and the petition was denied. Dkt. Nos. 138, 148. 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 9
3

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

The parties participated in a mediation session before the Honorable James F. Holderman 

(Ret.) of JAMS in May 2019. Dkt. No. 146. They were able to reach an agreement in principle to 

settle the case on a class-wide basis, and agreed to stay any pretrial and trial deadlines. Id. 

Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval on August 23, 2019. Dkt. No. 153.

C. Settlement Agreement

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a mediator, the parties 

entered into a settlement agreement on August 9, 2019. Dkt. No. 152-1 (“SA”). The key terms 

are as follows:

Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as: 

[A]ll Persons who purchased one or more of the following AMD 

computer chips either (1) while residing in California or (2) after 

visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590. 

SA ¶ 1.28. Excluded from the Class are any Judges or Magistrate Judges presiding over this 

action and their family members; Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parent companies, 

successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parent has a controlling 

interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; persons who properly 

execute and timely file a request for exclusion; and the legal representatives, successors, or assigns 

of any such excluded persons. Id.

Settlement Benefits: Defendant will make a $12,100,000 non-reversionary payment. Id. 

¶ 1.30. The settlement payment includes settlement payments to Class Members, settlement 

administrative expenses estimated between $350,000–$700,000, incentive awards, and any 

attorneys’ fees and costs awards. Id. ¶¶ 1.26, 1.30, 8.1, 8.3. Individual settlement amounts are 

estimated to average approximately $37.50 per purchased processor. Dkt. No. 153-1 ¶ 10. 

Release: All settlement class members will release:

any and all actual, potential, filed, known or unknown, fixed or 

contingent, claimed or unclaimed, suspected or unsuspected, claims, 

demands, liabilities, rights, causes of action, contracts or agreements, 

extracontractual claims, damages, punitive, exemplary or multiplied 

damages, expenses, costs, attorneys’ fees and or obligations 

(including “Unknown Claims,” as defined below), whether in law or 

in equity, accrued or unaccrued, direct, individual or representative, 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 9
4

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

of every nature and description whatsoever, whether based on 

California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising 

Law, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, or on claims of 

fraudulent inducement, breach of express warranty, or negligent 

misrepresentation, or other federal, state, local, statutory or common 

law or any other law, rule or regulation, against the Released Parties, 

or any of them, arising out of any marketing materials, advertising, 

descriptions, facts, transactions, events, matters, occurrences, acts, 

disclosures, statements, representations, omissions or failures to act 

regarding the number of cores in AMD’s FX-8120, FX-8150, FX8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590 processors, 

including all claims that were brought or could have been brought in 

the Action relating to representations about those CPUs.

SA ¶ 1.23. “Unknown Claims” mean claims:

that could have been raised in the Action and that any or all of the 

Releasing Parties do not know or suspect to exist, which, if known by 

him or her, might affect his or her agreement to release the Released 

Parties or the Released Claims or might affect his or her decision to 

agree, object or not to object to the Settlement.

Id. ¶ 1.32.

Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will send class notices via U.S. mail

and/or email based on information provided by certain third-party resellers of the AMD processors

at issue. Id. ¶ 4.1. The settlement administrator will also implement a digital media campaign 

targeting approximately 6,713,000 potential purchasers. Dkt. No. 153-3 ¶¶ 25–29. The notice 

will include: the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement terms, and instructions on how 

to object to and opt out of the settlement, including relevant deadlines. SA ¶¶ 1.16, 4.2; Dkt. No. 

152-1, Exs. C, D. 

Opt-Out Procedure: The deadline for a class member to submit a request for exclusion is 

forty-five (45) days after the Notice Date and no sooner than fourteen (14) days after papers 

supporting a fee award are filed with the Court and posted to the settlement website. SA ¶ 1.18. 

Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiffs will apply for incentive awards of no more than 

$7,500. Id. ¶ 8.3. 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys’ fees not to 

exceed one third of the settlement fund ($3,630,000), as well as costs. Id. ¶ 8.1. 

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 9
5

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

II. CLASS CERTIFICATION

Because no facts that would affect the Court’s reasoning have changed since the Court 

approved the class on January 17, 2019, this order incorporates by reference its prior analysis 

under Rules 23(a) and (b) as set forth in the order certifying the class.

1

 See Dkt. No 135. In 

addition, the Court incorporates its previous analysis appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives, 

and Edelson PC as Class Counsel. Id. at 13.

III. PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a 

certified class—or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement— may be settled . . . 

only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). “The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect 

the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.” In re 

Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, before a district court 

approves a class action settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is “fundamentally fair, 

adequate and reasonable.” In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674–75 (9th Cir. 2008).

Where the parties reach a class action settlement prior to class certification, district courts 

apply “‘a higher standard of fairness’ and ‘a more probing inquiry than may normally be required 

under Rule 23(e).’” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 

However, because the Court certified the class here prior to settlement, the Court need not apply 

this heightened standard.

Courts may preliminarily approve a settlement and direct notice to the class if the proposed 

settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) does 

not grant improper preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments of the class; 

(3) falls within the range of possible approval; and (4) has no obvious deficiencies. In re Lenovo 

 

1 The Court notes that the only difference between the certified class and settlement class is that 

the certified class included “all individuals,” whereas the settlement class includes “all persons.” 

Compare Dkt. No. 135 at 14 with SA ¶ 1.28. This change is to permit businesses to participate in 

the settlement. Dkt. No. 153 at 8. The Court finds that this difference is not material such that it 

would change its initial class certification analysis. 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 9
6

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

Adware Litig., No. 15-MD-02624-HSG, 2018 WL 6099948, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018)

(citation omitted). Courts lack the authority, however, to “delete, modify or substitute certain 

provisions. The settlement must stand or fall in its entirety.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 

1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

B. Analysis

i. Settlement Process

The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the parties settled the action. 

“An initial presumption of fairness is usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class 

counsel after arm’s-length bargaining.” Lenovo, 2018 WL 6099948, at *7 (citation and quotations 

omitted). 

Here, Class Counsel believes, after significant discovery, class certification, and mediation, 

that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Dkt. No. 153 at 10; Dkt. No. 153-1 ¶¶ 3–

10. Based on the record, the Court agrees that the nature of the settlement process conducted by 

the parties weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

ii. Preferential Treatment

The Court next considers whether the settlement agreement provides preferential treatment 

to any class member. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts must be “particularly 

vigilant” for signs that counsel have allowed the “self-interests” of “certain class members to 

infect negotiations.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 

2011). For that reason, courts in this district have consistently stated that preliminary approval of 

a class action settlement is inappropriate where the proposed agreement “improperly grant[s]

preferential treatment to class representatives.” Lenovo, 2018 WL 6099948, at *8 (citation and 

quotations omitted).

Although the Settlement Agreement authorizes Plaintiffs Dickey and Palmer to seek

incentive awards of no more than $7,500 for their roles as Named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, see SA 

¶ 8.3, the Court will ultimately determine whether they are entitled to such an award and the 

reasonableness of the amount requested. Incentive awards “are intended to compensate class 

representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 9
7

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

undertaken in bringing the action.” Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958–59 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs must provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to evaluate Plaintiffs’

award “individually, using ‘relevant factors includ[ing] the actions the plaintiff has taken to 

protect the interests of the class, the degree to which the class has benefitted from those actions, 

. . . [and] the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation . . . .’” 

Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court will 

consider the evidence presented at the final fairness hearing and evaluate the reasonableness of 

any incentive award request. Nevertheless, because incentive awards are not per se unreasonable, 

the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval. See Rodriguez, 563 F.3d 

at 958 (finding that “[i]ncentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases” and “are 

discretionary” (emphasis omitted)).

iii. Settlement within Range of Possible Approval

The third factor that the Court considers is whether the settlement is within the range of 

possible approval. To evaluate whether the settlement amount is adequate, “courts primarily 

consider plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Lenovo, 

2018 WL 6099948, at *8. This requires the Court to evaluate the strength of Plaintiff’s case. 

Here, assuming a 20% claims rate, Plaintiffs estimate that Class Members will recover 

approximately $37.50 per purchased processor, and the total settlement amount constitutes 

approximately 20% of Plaintiffs’ estimated maximum possible recovery at trial. Dkt. No. 153-1 

¶¶ 8–10; Dkt. No. 153 at 12. Plaintiffs acknowledge that there is substantial risk they would face 

in continuing to litigate this case, such as proceeding past a motion for summary judgment, 

maintaining class treatment, and prevailing at trial. Dkt. No. 153 at 11. The Court finds that the 

settlement amount, given these risks, weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval.

iv. Obvious Deficiencies

The fourth and final factor that the Court considers is whether there are obvious 

deficiencies in the settlement agreement. The Court finds no obvious deficiencies, and therefore

finds that this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

* * *

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Having weighed the relevant factors, the Court preliminarily finds that the settlement 

agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and GRANTS preliminary approval. 

IV. MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APROVAL AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Court DIRECTS the parties to include both a joint proposed order and a joint 

proposed judgment when submitting their motion for final approval.

V. PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE PLAN

For Rule 23(b)(3) class actions, “the court must direct notice to the class members the best 

notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who 

can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). 

With respect to the content of the notice itself, the notice must clearly and concisely state 

in plain, easily understood language:

(i) the nature of the action; 

(ii) the definition of the class certified; 

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; 

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if 

the member so desires; 

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests 

exclusion; 

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and 

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

The Court finds that the proposed notices, Dkt. No. 152-1, Exs. C and D, are the best 

practicable forms of notice under the circumstances.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval

of class action settlement. The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer and stipulate to a 

schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven 

days of the date of this Order:

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 9
9

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

Event Date

Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail 

notice to all putative class members

Filing Deadline for attorneys’ fees and costs motion

Filing deadline for incentive payment motion

Deadline for class members to opt-out or object to 

settlement and/or application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs and incentive payment

Filing deadline for final approval motion

Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions

The parties are further DIRECTED to implement the proposed class notice plan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/4/2019

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 154 Filed 10/04/19 Page 9 of 9