Pecover v. Electronic Arts

Case # 08-cv-02820
Case Name Pecover v. Electronic Arts
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Electronic Arts manufactures the popular Madden NFL video game franchise.  Facing competition from Take Two's NFL 2K5 games, Electronic Arts entered into exclusive agreements with the National Football League, the Arena Football League, and the NCAA.  These agreements ensured that they were the only company able to market licensed football games.  As a result of these exclusivity agreements, Electronic Arts became the only player in the football video game industry.  Their virtual monopoly allowed them to raise the prices on their games by nearly seventy percent (see Amended Complaint, ¶16) and consumers no longer had the benefit of a competitive marketplace.

Final Approval Date 05/30/2013
Result
  1. Plan of allocation was modified, to direct additional funds to class members and escheatment to the government, instead of cy pres recipients.
  2. Final Approval granted.
  3. Attorneys' fees of $33,975 were awarded to Objector Frank and the Center for Class Action Fairness.
  4. Objector Miller (through Attorney Miller) appealed the Final Approval.
  5. Objector Miller's appeal was voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 08/16/2013
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Plaintiff's Amended Plan of Allocation.pdf
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Amended Plan of Allocation.pdf
Order on Amended Plan of Allocation.pdf
Plaintiff's Proposed Supplemental Notice.pdf
Final Judgment and Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Theodore H. Frank

Objectors Theodore H. Frank
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Attorneys Melissa Holyoak
Kyle F. Graham
Summary
  1. Settlement improperly favors cy pres recipients over class members.
    • Defendant may have ability to send direct relief to some Seventh Generation class members but does not.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
    • Administration costs should not be included in the value of the settlement.
    • Cy pres award should not be included in the value of the settlement.
    • Clear sailing provisions show signs of self-dealing.
  3. Claims period is insufficiently long, which prevents class members from fully assessing the value of the settlement and their claims.

Claiming an improvement of $11.5 million to the class, through a trebling of damages and a limited distribution of direct relief, Objector Frank motioned for attorneys' fees of $33,975.  This request was unopposed and was granted by the Court.

Attachments Objection of Theodore H. Frank.pdf
Frank Response to Amended Plan of Allocation.pdf
Frank Response to Supplemental Notice.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Theodore H. Frank.pdf
Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Objector Frank.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys' Fees for Objector Frank.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Aaron Miller

Objectors Aaron Miller
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Summary
  1. Value of claims does not equal value of damages.
  2. Injunctive relief is illusory, since it does not pertain to licensing agreements between Electronic Arts and the National Football League.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive, given that the settlement provides no on-going benefit to the class.
Attachments Objection of Aaron Miller.pdf
Supplemental Objection of Aaron Miller.pdf
Appeal of Objector Miller.pdf
Dismissal of Miller Appeal.pdf
Miller Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Joseph Rugo, Matthew Klesken

Objectors Joseph Rugo
Matthew Klesken
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Cy pres recipients are not sufficiently linked to the settlement.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Joseph Rugo and Matthew Klesken.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of David C. Marlow

Objectors David C. Marlow
Signers W. Allen McDonald
Attorneys W. Allen McDonald
Summary
  1. Settlement is unfair, since it excludes residents of states that have differing consumer protection statutes.
  2. Class representative does not adequately represent class members residing in Tennessee.
  3. Settlement violates basic principles of federalism, by including class members whose state laws prevent them from making a claim.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  5. Release is overbroad.
  6. Preliminary approval order did not sufficiently define the Class, as well as important class terms.
  7. Value of claims does not equal value of damages.
  8. Injunctive relief is illusory.
Attachments Objection of David C. Marlow.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated