McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification and preliminary approval of a class-action settlement after the court had denied their first motion without prejudice. The court had previously found that the plaintiffs had not adequately shown that the proposed settlement fell within a reasonable range and had not sufficiently addressed differences between the claims in the operative complaint and the claims covered by the settlement.

After reviewing supplemental briefing about the settlement’s monetary value and a supporting declaration, the court concluded that the proposed settlement fell within a reasonable range. The parties also agreed to file a fifth amended complaint containing all settled claims.

Settlement Class and Preliminary Certification

For settlement purposes only, the court preliminarily certified a class consisting of all individuals in the United States who purchased one or more qualifying products from January 14, 2018, through July 2, 2025, the date of preliminary approval. The qualifying products are certain Corsair DDR-4 memory products with a base or default speed above 2133 megahertz and certain Corsair DDR-5 memory products with a base or default speed above 4800 megahertz. The order excludes specified judges and their families, Corsair and related entities and personnel, counsel and their law firms, people who timely request exclusion, and the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of excluded people.

For settlement purposes only, the court found that the proposed class met the requirements for class treatment under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court preliminarily appointed Antonio McKinney, Clint Sundeen, and Joseph Alcantara as class representatives and Dovel & Luner, LLP and Kneupper Covey, PC as class counsel.

Ruling and Settlement Administration

The court granted the renewed motion and approved the parties’ stipulation allowing the plaintiffs to file the fifth amended complaint within seven days. No responsive pleading was required.

The court preliminarily found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It found that the class representatives and counsel had adequately represented the class, that the settlement had been negotiated at arm’s length, that the relief was adequate, and that class members were treated equitably. The court also found no signs of the types of collusion identified in the cited precedent, including disproportionate payments to counsel, a provision allowing the defendant to avoid opposing a fee request, or a provision returning unused settlement funds.

The court approved the proposed notice plan, claims procedure, and procedures for objections and requests for exclusion. It appointed Angeion Group as settlement administrator and authorized that administrator to carry out the notice plan. The order required filings concerning notice, attorneys’ fees, costs, incentive awards, final approval, and other deadlines according to the schedule in the order. It set the final approval hearing for December 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. by Zoom.

Effect of the Order

The court expressly stated that the order made no determination about the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations. The settlement and related materials could not be treated as an admission or evidence that Corsair had engaged in wrongdoing or was liable. If final approval did not occur or the settlement’s effective date was not reached, the parties would return to the status quo described in their agreement, and the settlement-class certification would be vacated and not used in later class-certification proceedings. The court stayed the case except for proceedings needed to implement the settlement and retained jurisdiction for settlement purposes.