Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Background

Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer brought a consumer class action against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. They alleged that AMD deceptively advertised certain Bulldozer Processors as having eight cores, even though the alleged cores were sub-processors that could not operate independently. The operative complaint asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as well as claims for fraud in the inducement, breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation.

The court had certified a class covering people who purchased one or more specified AMD processors either while residing in California or after visiting AMD’s website. After formal discovery and mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement providing for a $12,100,000 non-reversionary settlement payment. The estimated average payment was approximately $30.40 per purchased processor. The agreement also provided for notice, an exclusion procedure, releases of claims concerning representations about the processors’ core counts, and distribution of certain remaining funds to the Rose Foundation.

Final Settlement Approval

The court held a final fairness hearing on February 20, 2020. It found that the notice plan complied with the applicable class-action rules and was reasonably calculated to inform class members about the settlement. The court also found that the settlement was fair, adequate, and reasonable based on the complexity and risks of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class certification, the settlement amount, the extensive discovery, counsel’s experience, and the class response.

The settlement covered approximately 123,437 valid and approved claims involving 274,376 chip purchases. The court noted that there were no objections and six requests for exclusion. It also found no evidence of collusion or conflicts of interest. The court therefore granted the motion for final approval of the class action settlement and approved the $12,100,000 settlement, including $18,750 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency under the Private Attorneys General Act, $10,000 in settlement-administrator costs, attorneys’ fees, costs, incentive payments, and the specified reimbursement to Dickey.

Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards

Class Counsel requested $3,025,000 in attorneys’ fees, equal to 25 percent of the settlement fund, and $47,517.37 in litigation costs. The court found the requested fees reasonable under both the percentage-of-the-fund method and a lodestar cross-check. The lodestar is an estimate based on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates. The court approved $3,025,000 in attorneys’ fees and $47,517.37 in costs.

The named plaintiffs requested incentive awards of $7,500 each. The court found that amount unwarranted under the circumstances, but approved an incentive fee of $5,000 for each named plaintiff. The court also approved separate reimbursement of $2,482.85 to Dickey for damage to his computer during the litigation.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that the motion for final approval of the class action settlement was GRANTED. The motion for Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and class representative enhancement payment was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The parties and settlement administrator were directed to implement the order and settlement agreement, and the parties were directed to file a stipulated final judgment within 10 days.