In re Sony PS3 "Other OS" Litigation

Case # 10-cv-01811
Case Name In re Sony PS3 "Other OS" Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

In 2006, Sony released the PS3 version of its Playstation gaming console.  A prominent part of the advertising for the PS3 involved the fact that it could be used as a computer, using the "Other OS" functionality.  Many consumers purchased the PS3 (which also had an advertised operating life of 10 years) because other gaming consoles did not offer this feature.  However, in 2010, Sony released an update of the PS3 that disabled the "Other OS" function.  Plaintiffs allege that this constitutes a violation of the warranty terms and terms of service between Sony and the consumers who purchased the product.

Final Approval Date 06/08/2018
Result
  1. The Court initially denied Final Approval to the settlement, expressing concerns that the claims process was overly burdensome, that the claims rate was egregiously low, and that the attorneys' fees were insufficiently justified.
  2. The Court approved an updated Settlement Agreement on 06/08/2018.
  3. Objector Lindberg, through Attorneys Miorelli and Atkinson motioned for $75,000 in attorneys' fees, $1,360.15 in attorneys' expenses, and an objector incentive award of $3,500, citing improvements to the settlement as a result of the objection.
  4. The Court, finding that the Lindberg objection "provided some material benefit to the class," granted $20,760 in attorneys' fees, $326 in attorneys' expenses, and an incentive award of $1,750.  The Court justified reducing the request by noting that the number of hours billed "appear excessive" and noting that local counsel (Attorney Atkinson) showed an "inability to discuss even the basic facts of the objection" and thus, fees for local counsel were not warranted. (See Order Granting in Part Motion for Fees for Class Counsel and Objector)
  5. Objector Sweeney appealed the Final Approval.
  6. Class Counsel opposed this appeal, since it was filed late (Objector Sweeney claimed a delay in mail delivery) and because Objector Sweeney did not object to the renewed motion for preliminary approval.
  7. The Court granted Objector Sweeney's appeal.
  8. The Sweeney appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute (failure to pay the docketing fee).
Dismissal of Last Appeal 09/10/2018
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Order Denying Motion for Final Approval.pdf
Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval.pdf
Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Fees for Class Counsel and Objector.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Eric M. Lindberg, Susan Lindberg

Objectors Eric M. Lindberg
Susan Lindberg
Signers Eric M. Lindberg
Sam A. Miorelli
Attorneys Sam A. Miorelli
Grant F. Atkinson
Summary
  1. Release is overbroad.
  2. Claims process is overly burdensome.
  3. Settlement shows signs of self-dealing.
  4. Class counsel is inadequate to represent the Class.
  5. Settlement should be evaluated based on the actual recovery by the Class.
  6. Class representative incentive award is excessive.
  7. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  8. Attorneys' fee distribution should be approved by the Court.
Attachments Objection of Eric Michael Lindberg.pdf
Miorelli Appearance for Objector Lindberg.pdf
Lindberg Reply to Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Objector Lindberg.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Lindberg Motion for Fees.pdf
Lindberg Reply in Support of Motion for Fees.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of John Navarrete

Objectors John Navarrete
Signers Joshua R. Furman
Attorneys Joshua R. Furman
Summary
  1. Conflict of interest exists between sub-class members who have retained records and those who have not.
  2. Claims process is overly burdensome.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive, given that the actual recovery by the class is unknown.
  4. Class representation is inadequate.
  5. Total relief to the class is insufficient.
Attachments Objection of John Navarrete.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Patrick Sweeney
Signers Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims administration process lacks sufficient oversight.
  2. Notice is inadequate because it does not contain the total settlement amount.
  3. A portion of the attorneys' fees should be set aside to ensure proper settlement oversight.
  4. Attorneys' fees are excessive and unsupported.

The Court allowed the appeal of Objector Sweeney, finding that the delay in filing was due to a delay in mail delivery and/or negligence on the part of Objector Sweeney by improperly labeling the envelopes.

Attachments Objection of Patrick Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Sweeney.pdf
Motion to Strike Sweeney's Untimely Appeal.pdf
Sweeney Motion to File Untimely Appeal.pdf
Order Granting Sweeney Motion to File Out of Time Appeal.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Dismissal of Sweeney Appeal.pdf
Sweeney Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated