Yesterday, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram filed a 58-page decision in the Grand Theft Auto class action. How did she decide?
The court decertified the class (via NY Times Bits Blog and a phone-call from Jonathan Glater) based on the Second Circuit precedent of McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Company, which was decided after the settlement in November. As I suggested last month, I think McLaughlin would certainly preclude a litigation class of the GTA claims, but the court’s decision may be an aggressive use of the precedent by the court to decertify the settlement class, where the certification standards are looser because there is no need to demonstrate that a class would be superior to individual litigation. Take Two spent about a million dollars negotiating and administering a settlement because the court refused to rule on its decertification motion last year; that wasted effort demonstrates why it is important for courts to resolve certification questions early in the case. But with no certified class, there can be no class settlement, and the court does not need to directly reach the issues in my brief.
I am encouraged by footnote 26 of the opinion, which, in dicta, suggests that the Court would have adopted at least some of the arguments in my brief regarding the untenability of the settlement. I am disappointed that there isn’t a more explicit precedent for these principles, which will make it easier for other class action attorneys to attempt to bring similar settlements that will freeze out the class and inflate the value of the settlement to rationalize high attorneys’ fees. On the other hand, the court’s stricter standard for settlement class certification serves a similar deterrent purpose against meritless strike suits filed in the hopes of such a settlement. And, of course, without my objection, the court very likely would have simply rubber-stamped the settlement and the plaintiffs’ attorneys would have walked away with a million dollars for nothing.
The interesting question will be whether there will be a Rule 23(f) appeal by the plaintiffs. If so, I may need to file a Second Circuit brief after all.
Also, I learned a new word: “asseveration.” (When you asseverate, you make an ass out of–oh, never mind.)
6 Comments
Given the court decertified and therefore didn’t have to reach the issues you raised, you should be encouraged by the footnote. The Court didn’t need to insert that footnote given its finding, but made it pretty clear the problems of the settlement terms raised in your brief. Frankly, the Court gave you just about all it could given the class was decertified.
Thank you for doing the work you’ve done in this matter. I own all the GTA games, and I thought this suit was absurd on it’s face. If you don’t like the locked away depiction of animated sex, then don’t buy the computer version of the game, and don’t download a hack and specifically unlock it. Sheesh.
Again, thanks for trying to inject some sense of sanity into the situation.
Excellent work.
Great job with this Ted. Thanks for taking the time and putting in the effort. Good stuff.
Congratulations and thank you. It’s often thankless work standing up for what’s right. But, as they say, All evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing.
[…] http://overlawyered.com/2008/07/grand-theft-auto-class-action-the-denouement/#more-7351 […]