HOLDINGS: [1]-In this Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act class action, recovery through settlement conferred a substantial and immediate benefit to the class that outweighed the potential recovery that could have been obtained through full litigation where the disputed factual and legal issues would be costly and complex to resolve at trial; [2]-The amount offered in settlement weighed in favor of granting final approval of the settlement where the proposed settlement provided class members with immediate monetary relief for a total of at least $1,450,000 and as much as $2,700,000; [3]-The parties’ extensive investigation, discovery, and subsequent settlement discussions weighed heavily in favor of granting final approval. Parties’ litigation lawyer San Diego appeal.
Outcome
Plaintiff’s motion granted.
Procedural Posture
Appellant sought review of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in favor of appellee company and appellee specialist, which found that the license agreement between appellant and appellee company authorized appellee company to outsource certain technical support work to appellee specialist.
Overview
Appellant entered into a licensing agreement with appellee company, which authorized the use of certain of appellant’s software by appellee company. Appellee company outsourced certain technical support work involving the software to appellee specialist. Appellant sought review of the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellees, which found that the license agreement authorized appellee specialist to copy and use appellant’s software on behalf of appellee company. The court vacated the trial court’s judgment. The license agreement authorized only appellee company’s use of the software, and provided that the right was non-transferable. The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment on its claims for copyright infringement, inducement of infringement, and breach of contract, and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of appellant on these claims. Finally, the court remanded the case for assignment to a different trial court judge because it was apparent that the trial court would have substantial difficulty in putting out of its mind its previously expressed views.
Outcome
Judgment in favor of appellees was vacated. Denial of appellant’s summary judgment motion was reversed in part, and the trial court was ordered to enter summary judgment in favor of appellant on its claims for copyright infringement, inducement of infringement, and breach of contract.