In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

Case # 07-cv-05944
Case Name In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Lawsuit alleges that producers of Cathode Ray Tube Products (including things like television and computer monitors) actively conspired to regulate and inflate the price for these products.  As a result of this collusion, consumers paid more for the products than they would in an open market.

Final Approval Date ongoing
Result
  1. This case represents the consolidation of a number of cases against producers of CRT products.  However, of note is the separate settlement with the Defendant Chunghwa, which is discussed below in relation to an objection by Sean Hull.
  2. The Master Case is still ongoing.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas on Objectors.pdf
Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas on Objectors (Part 2).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sean Hull

Objectors Sean Hull
Signers Sean Hull
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees make up a disproportionate amount of the settlement.
  2. Class notice is not sufficiently clear on the plan of allocation.
  3. Relief to individual class members is insufficient.

Class counsel attempted to serve Objector Hull nine times with a notice of deposition, so they could ascertain his class membership and further information on his objection.  According to class counsel and the process server, the subpoena was successfully served at Objector Hull's home on 02/26/2012, a fact that Objector Hull disputes.  Class counsel then travelled to Denver for the deposition, which Objector Hull did not appear for.

The Report and Recommendation of the Special Master "concludes from the record before the Court that Mr. Hull has been evasive, has attempted to avoid process from this Court, is deliberately stalling the Court procedures - all in an attempt to maintain his status as an objector FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CLASS [emphasis added]." (Docket 1233, page 2).

Class counsel motioned for sanctions totaling $6,166.95, which had not been resolved at the time Objector Hull voluntarily withdrew his appeal.

Christopher Bandas never filed an appearance for this objection but the evidence (including that the objection was postmarked in Corpus Christi, TX despite Objector Hull living in CO, as well as previous associations between the two).  In the Order Granting Motion to Compel, the Court noted that "Bandas routinely represents objectors purporting to challenge class action settlements, and does not do so to effectuate changes to settlements, but does so for his own personal financial gain [emphasis added]." (Docket 1155, page 4)

Objector Hull, through Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer, ultimately withdrew his appeal to the Chunghwa settlement.  He has since filed a second objection to the Master Settlement, on 10/07/2015.

Attachments Objection of Sean Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Motion to Shorten Time on Discovery of Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time on Discovery of Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Reply in Support of Subpoena of Objector Hull.pdf
Order Granting Motion to Compel Discovery of Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Objector Hull Motion to Reconsider (Chunghwa).pdf
Affadavit in Support of Objector Hull Motion to Reconsider (Chunghwa).pdf
Reply to Objector Hull Motion to Reconsider (Chunghwa).pdf
Motion for Contempt and Sanctions Against Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Palmer Appearance for Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Objector Hull Response to Motion for Sanctions (Chunghwa).pdf
Reply to Objector Hull Response to Motion for Sanctions (Chunghwa).pdf
Report and Recommendation of Special Master Regarding Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Proposed Order Granting Sanctions Against Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Appeal of Objector Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Palmer Appearance for Objector-Appellant Hull (Chunghwa).pdf
Dismissal of Hull Appeal (Chunghwa).pdf
Hull Appeal Docket (Chunghwa).pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Paul Palmer

Objectors Paul Palmer
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive, as a percentage of the settlement fund.

NOTE:  Objector Palmer later voluntarily withdrew his objection in exchange for Class Counsel withdrawing its deposition subpoena.

Attachments Objection of Paul Palmer.pdf
Withdrawal of Palmer Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sean Hull, Gordon Morgan

Objectors Sean Hull
Gordon Morgan
Signers Timothy R. Hanigan
Attorneys Timothy R. Hanigan
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Insufficient notice was given to class members who may have purchased a CRT product in the United States but currently live outside the U.S.
  2. Certain class members must unfairly relinquish claims without fair compensation.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Lodestar may be inaccurate.
Attachments Objection of Sean Hull and Gordon Morgan.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Laura Fortman, John Finn

Objectors Laura Fortman
John Finn
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Jonathan E. Fortman
John C. Kress
Summary
  1. Class members in 22 states must release their claims, with no compensation.
  2. Conflict of interest exists between Class Counsel, class members in omitted states, and class representatives.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Laura Fortman and John Finn.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Douglas W. St. John

Objectors Douglas W. St. John
Signers Andrea Valdez
Attorneys Andrea Valdez
Joseph Scott St. John
Summary
  1. Majority of discovery was performed by outside investigators before the lawsuit even was filed.
    • Class action claims are unnecessary.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
    • Lodestar may be inaccurate.
Attachments Objection of Douglas W. St. John.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated