Judge sets trial date for wage suppression class action against Silicon Valley companies

September 15, 2014 by

intelJudge Koh, the California federal judge overseeing the antitrust class action claiming Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc. illegally agreed not to poach each other’s engineers set April 9, 2015, as the trial start date.

As we posted earlier on this blog, the Judge had earlier rejected a proposed $324.5 million settlement.

In a case management order, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh set the trial date, as well as a pretrial conference date of Dec. 19.  The parties have re-entered mediation over the poaching allegations.

Judge Koh’s order comes after the technology companies urged the Ninth Circuit to vacate Judge Koh’s rejection of the proposed settlement to a suit alleging the companies illegally agreed not to poach each other’s engineers. They said she committed a clear legal error by using “a benchmark formula that impermissibly substituted the court’s assessment of the value of the case for that of the parties who litigated the matter for more than three years.”

Judge Koh’s Aug. order expressed concern that the $324.5 million proposal would offer class members proportionally less than an $11 million deal struck by Intuit Inc.and a $9 million deal struck by Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar Animation Studios Inc.

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.