Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Netflix Class Action Dismissal

    Uploaded by

    mmasnick
    The court ordered the plaintiffs in three related antitrust lawsuits against Netflix (In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation) to provide notice to absent putative class members before dismissing the cases. While no class had been certified, some members may have refrained from filing their own lawsuits based on the publicity around these cases. The plaintiffs must file a plan by October 17th to notify absent members of the case terminations using the same channels as the initial publicity, ensuring equal attention. After implementing the notice plan, the court will dismiss the three cases, excluding Vargas v. Netflix.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Netflix Class Action Dismissal

    Uploaded by

    mmasnick
    56 views2 pages
    The court ordered the plaintiffs in three related antitrust lawsuits against Netflix (In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation) to provide notice to absent putative class members before dismissing the cases. While no class had been certified, some members may have refrained from filing their own lawsuits based on the publicity around these cases. The plaintiffs must file a plan by October 17th to notify absent members of the case terminations using the same channels as the initial publicity, ensuring equal attention. After implementing the notice plan, the court will dismiss the three cases, excluding Vargas v. Netflix.

    Original Description:

    Judge orders plaintiffs to alert the press

    Original Title

    Netflix class action dismissal

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ordered the plaintiffs in three related antitrust lawsuits against Netflix (In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation) to provide notice to absent putative class members before dismissing the cases. While no class had been certified, some members may have refrained from filing their own lawsuits based on the publicity around these cases. The plaintiffs must file a plan by October 17th to notify absent members of the case terminations using the same channels as the initial publicity, ensuring equal attention. After implementing the notice plan, the court will dismiss the three cases, excluding Vargas v. Netflix.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Netflix Class Action Dismissal

    Uploaded by

    mmasnick
    The court ordered the plaintiffs in three related antitrust lawsuits against Netflix (In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation) to provide notice to absent putative class members before dismissing the cases. While no class had been certified, some members may have refrained from filing their own lawsuits based on the publicity around these cases. The plaintiffs must file a plan by October 17th to notify absent members of the case terminations using the same channels as the initial publicity, ensuring equal attention. After implementing the notice plan, the court will dismiss the three cases, excluding Vargas v. Netflix.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 70 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 2

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    7
    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    8
    9
    10 IN RE NETFLIX ANTITRUST LITIGATION No. C 07-00643 WHA
    11
    United States District Court

    _____________________________________/
    For the Northern District of California

    12 ORDER RE NOTICE TO ABSENT


    13 This Document Relates To: PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS

    14 No. C 07-00643 WHA


    No. C 07-01266 WHA
    15 No. C 07-01978 WHA
    /
    16
    17 The Court has received plaintiffs’ and defendant’s responses to the Court’s order to

    18 show cause why the above-captioned actions should not be dismissed, and addressing the

    19 question of notice to absent putative class members.

    20 Since no class has been certified, Rule 23(e) does not mandate notice to absent class

    21 members. Here, since this action received some press, some absent class members may have

    22 refrained from filing their own actions because they were depending on these actions to toll the

    23 statute of limitations. Because of this, before judgment is entered in this action, plaintiffs are

    24 required to give notice of the termination of these actions using the same channels that were

    25 used to publicize these actions at their outset.

    26 No later than OCTOBER 17, 2007, plaintiffs shall file with the Court a plan for giving

    27 such notice to absent class members taking care to make sure that the end of these actions gets

    28 as much attention as their start. After this plan is approved and implemented, these actions will
    Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 70 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 2

    1 be dismissed. This order does not, however, affect the Vargas action, No. C 07-03802. The
    2 case management conference in that action remains set for October 25, 2007, at 11:00 a.m.
    3
    4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
    5
    6 Dated: October 10, 2007.
    WILLIAM ALSUP
    7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    8
    9
    10
    11
    United States District Court
    For the Northern District of California

    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    You might also like