Smith v. Apple, Inc.

No. 21-cv-09527-HSG (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · May 1, 2025 · No. 21-cv-09527-HSG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions for final approval of a class action settlement and for attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards. The settlement provides for a $20 million non-reversionary fund for purchasers of certain Apple Watch models who reported battery-swelling-related issues, with class payments generally estimated at approximately $25 per covered device. The Court approves $5 million in attorneys’ fees, $433,417.83 in litigation expenses, and $27,000 in incentive awards.

Holdings

  1. The settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and the class received adequate notice; final approval was therefore warranted.
  2. Class counsel was entitled to $5,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $433,417.83 in litigation expenses from the common settlement fund.
  3. The requested incentive awards were reasonable, and the court awarded $5,000 to lead plaintiff Chris Smith and $2,000 to each of the remaining named plaintiffs.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proposed class action settlement satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)'s requirements of fairness, reasonableness, adequacy, and adequate notice.
  2. Whether the requested attorneys' fees and litigation expenses were reasonable under the common-fund doctrine and applicable fee-award standards.
  3. Whether the requested incentive awards for the named plaintiffs were reasonable and proportionate to their service to the class.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019-22, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941-42, 946 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • McKinney-Drobnis v. Oreshack, 16 F.4th 594, 607-09 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 848, 851 (N.D. Cal. 2010)(followed)
  • Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958-59, 966 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Ching v. Siemens Indus., Inc., No. 11-cv-04838-MEJ, 2014 WL 2926210, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014)(followed)
  • Villanueva v. Morpho Detection, Inc., No. 13-cv-05390-HSG, 2016 WL 1070523, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…