The Kroll Lens: Monitoring Class Action Settlements—2025, Volume XIII

In Re: Telescopes Antitrust Litigation,

No. 5:20-CV-03639-EJD, 2025 WL 1093248 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025) (Davila, J.)

Plaintiffs filed a consumer action alleging a price fixing conspiracy among telescope manufacturing entities. After a settlement was reached, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs brought a motion for final approval and awards. The Court granted final approval over the arguments of six objectors.

Reasoning in support of its decision, the Court first discussed certification, noting that the requirements were met, with little discussion on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority. The Court also determined that the notice to the class had been adequate, referencing a notice plan reaching approximately 80% of the class.

Looking next at the settlement, the Court found the strength of the case, risk of litigation and extent of discovery factors were favorable. The amount of the $32 million non-reversionary fund was found favorable, and the Court found the proposed non-profit beneficiary appropriate to receive any remainder. The Court found a de minimis number of opt-outs and objections and approved the pro rata allocation plan as reasonable in a consumer action. Finally, the Court found no signs of collusion after the parties undertook mediation with protracted negotiations.

Turning to objections, the Court began with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and overruled their objection as to the ability of defendants to pay, citing that its fiduciary duty in this motion was to the indirect class.

For Woodlands (a corporate objector), who alleged that non-individual entities had nowhere to put a business name on the claim form, the Court overruled this objection as moot, finding that such entities could have entered a company name on the name line already, but that the form had also now been updated to add a line for name of entity, and the claim period remained open for more than 30 days.

In terms of individual (non-corporate) objectors, the Court overruled Objector Barnes’ various objections. First, the Court rejected the argument that claimants who did not receive a claim number were required to print and mail their forms, finding that this additional step did not prejudice class members. Second, the Court found the system used to provide claimants with such numbers had been effective, and was conducted with diligence by the administrator, who had updated the website to direct claimants to a designated toll-free number to request a claim number — a necessary step taken to curtail the filing of fraudulent claims.

For Objector Zhen, who argued that the agreement did not account for purchasers in Puerto Rico, who therefore must waive their rights, the Court found that the Indirect Purchaser class definition did not include Puerto Rico or several other states, and thus did not foreclose future claims from those areas.

For Objector Sussman, the Court overruled another objection about claimants having to file a paper claim, and an objection that the notices lacked detail as to how and when to object to the agreement, instead finding that the website and long form notice had sufficiently provided this detail.

Looking next at fees, the Court found the amount reasonable under the percentage of fund and lodestar calculations, with little discussion. The Court also approved expenses as supported by the record and the service awards as below a presumptively reasonable amount.