Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Co.: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:00, 9 November 2006

Latest revision as of 14:21, 4 November 2024

(39 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{italic title}}

== The case ==

'''Willem ''Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al.''''' is a [[class action]] complaint that alleges that the [[defendants]], "In[i]n marketing, advertising and/or packaging their [[Flash Memory]] Cards and Flash Memory Drives, Defendants misrepresent the size of the memory storage contained in the Flash Memory Cards and Flash Memory Drives."<ref name="VROEGH_TAC">[http://www.pddocs.com/FlashMemory/Documents/Vroegh%20Third%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf Third Amended Complaint] Vroegh TAC</ref> The complaint accuses the defendants of "[[false advertising]], [[unfair business practices]], [[breach of contract]], [[fraud]], deceit and/or misrepresentation, and violation of the [[California Consumer Legal Remedies Act|California Consumers Legal Remedy Act]]".

==Facts==

The complaint, case number CGC-04-428953, was originally filed in [[Superior Court]] of the State of [[California]] for the county of [[San Francisco]] on [[February 20]], [[2004]]. The compaintcomplaint was first filed underas "''Willem Vroegh vs. Dane Elec Corp., USA, A Foreign Corporation et al.''", butWhen [[Dane-Elec]] settled out of court and was dismissed from the case on March 15, 2005, thus Eastman Kodak became the first defendant. ScottAnother Witthoffplaintiff wasintervened addedin forJanuary the Third Amended Complaint as an equal co-plaintiff to Vroegh2004.

The complaint originally named the following companies as defendants:

The complaint specifically named<ref name="VROEGH_COMPALINT">Willem Vroegh v Dane Elec Corp USA, et al - Filed February 20, 2004</ref>:

*Dane -Elec Corp. USA

*Fuji Film[[Fujifilm]] USA, Inc.

*[[Eastman Kodak Company]]

*[[Kingston Technology]] Corporation

*[[Lexar Media]], Inc.

*[[Memorex]] Products, Inc.

*P.N.Y.[[PNY ElectronicsTechnologies]], Inc.

*Sandisk[[SanDisk Corporation]]

*[[Verbatim Corporation]]

*[[Viking Components Incorporated]]

*And up to 200 defendants "to be named at a later date".

The basis[[gravamen]] forof the complaint is the apparentalleged loss in hard drive capacity that is caused by the difference between the the measurements calculated using the [[binary prefix]] and [[SI prefix]] systems.

== Settlement ==

On [[August 16]], [[2006]], there was a proposed final judgement on a proposed settlement<ref name="VROEGH_PFJ">[http://www.pddocs.com/FlashMemory/Documents/Vroegh%20Final%20Judgment.pdf Proposed Final Judgement] Vroegh Proposed Final Judgement</ref> and on [[November 1]], [[2006]], [[LexisNexis]] reported in their "California Legal News" that the settlement agreement calls for $2.4M in attorney fees.<ref name="lexis">[http://www.mealeys.com/legalnews/california.html California Legal News] LexisNexis</ref> The settlement was finally approved on or about November 21, 2006. The settlement provided for either a refund of 5% of the original purchase price or a 10% coupon on future purchases. The refund amount is in excess of the amount of memory that was allegedly missing. Accordingly, the settlement made available to class members refunds in excess of $100 million.

InFive the enddefendants, fiveincluding defendantsDane chose toElec, orsettled were unablethe tocase settleon outa ofnon-class courtbasis. The other five remaining defendants in the complaint<ref name="lastfive">[http://www.pddocs.com/FlashMemory/parties.aspx Party Contacts] Flash Memory Settlement</ref> were:, Eastman Kodak Company, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., Lexar Media, Inc., PNY Technologies, Inc., and SanDisk Corporation, settled on a class basis.<ref name="lastfive">[http://www.pddocs.com/FlashMemory/parties.aspx Party Contacts] Flash Memory Settlement</ref>

== Attorneys for the plaintiff ==

The lawfirmlaw firm of Adam Gutride and Seth Safier, GutrideLLP Safier,and LLPMilberg Weiss, hashave been involved in other significant class action lawsuits in California from which they receivedapplied for significant fee payments. and whichSuch havefee beenrequests are often cited as classicunreasonable examples of frivolous lawsuitsin that calledthey call into question the true motivation of the attorneys, as was the case <ref name="reason">[http://www.reason.com/blog/show/111561.html Is It a Real Class Action Settlement, or Is It a Scam? Both] Reason Magazine Online</ref> ofwith these particular attorneys. Two of the most notable class actions brought by Gutride Safier are the [[NetflixCriticism_of_Netflix#.22Throttling.22 and the Throttling_of_DVDs_by_mail|Chavez lawsuit|Netflix v. ChavezNetflix class action]] that was settled (but is currently on appeal<ref name="appeal">[http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=194535 California Appellate Courts] Chavez v. Netflix Inc. Appeal Status</ref>) when the defendants agreed to pay Gutride Safier $2.5 million<ref name="netflix_settled">[http://www.betanews.com/article/Netflix_Settles_Class_Action_Lawsuit/1130951636 Netflix Settles Class Action Lawsuit] BetaNews</ref> and the Orin Safier v. Western Digital Corporation class action that was settled when the defendants agreed to pay Gutride Safier $500,000.<ref name="safier_settled">[http://www.betanews.com/article/Western_Digital_Settles_Capacity_Suit/1151510648 Western Digital Settles Capacity Suit] BetaNews</ref>. The Western Digital case involved the same "binary vs decimal calculation" issue as the Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak case. In each of these cases, the named plaintiff was awarded $1000 to $2000 "''for their time and effort''".<ref name="vroegh_faq_13">[http://www.pddocs.com/FlashMemory/faq.aspx#13 "What are the Attorneys’ Fees for the Case?"] Vroegh FAQ #13</ref>, while rest of the class comparatively little.

Even though Netflix agreed to pay $2.5 million, the Judge in the case ultimately awarded Gutride Safier onlyapproximately $1.3 million.<ref name="AP_netflix_payment">[http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14475479.htm Judge approves Netflix settlement of 'throttling' case] Mercury News - AP Wire</ref>

On [[June 23]], [[2003]], Gutride and Safier brought a Business [[Tort]] complaint against numerous defendants, including: Amazon.com, Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Corporation, Dell, Good-Guys, and many others for false and deceptive advertising of MP3 players on the same "binary vs decimal calculation" issue.<ref name="Leffert_v_Amazon">Leffert v. Amazon.com, Inc - Case Number: CGC-03-421769</ref>. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed on [[March 14]], [[2005]]. The plaintiff in this case, Matthew Leffert, and his attroneys, Seth Safier and Adam Gutride happened to be co-sponsorsall of the 2004defendants San Francisco Jewish Film Festival<ref name="sfjff">[http://www.sfjff.org/sfjff24/people/sponsors.php SFJFF.org] Sponsors list</ref>. In addition, Matthew Leffert and Seth Safier also competed in the [[2002]] [[Marin County, California|Marin]] Trail 1/2 Marathon<ref name="marin">[http://www.envirosports.com/results/event/1050/pmt_half.php envirosports.com] Marin Trail 1/2 Marathon Results, 2002</ref> and the 2006 [[Angel Island, California|Angel Island]] 12K race<ref name="angel">[http://www.triportland.com/results/event/1589/results.php?bib=9156 athleteslounge.com] Angel Island 12K & 25K - 17th annual - Results</ref>settled.

==ReferencesSee also==

*[[List of class action lawsuits]]

<references/>

==References ==

[[Category:Law]]

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Dispute resolution]]

{{Eastman Kodak}}

[[Category:United_States_tort_case_law]]

[[Category:California_state_case_lawKodak]]

[[Category:United States class action case law]]