Opinion

In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.9%

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE MDL Case No. 21-md-02981-JD

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Member Case No. 20-cv-05761-JD

8

9 ORDER RE DECERTIFICATION AND

CLASS NOTICE

10

11

12

13 After developments in the expert witness opinions at the merits stage, the Court concluded

14 that the opinions of Dr. Hal J. Singer with respect to the merits of the consumer plaintiffs’ antitrust

15 claims must be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Dkt. No. 588.

16 This raises a question of decertification of the consumer class. The Court certified the

17 class, and denied Google’s motion to exclude Dr. Singer’s opinions in support of certification,

18 because the record at the certification stage supported those decisions. See Dkt. No. 383. That is

19 no longer the case. The Court has now excluded Dr. Singer’s pass-through formula and his

20 opinions based on the application of that formula in this litigation. The pass-through formula was

21 an essential element of the consumer plaintiffs’ argument in support of certification.

22 Consequently, the order granting certification should be vacated.

23 As a general rule, the Court is free “to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory

24 order” such as certification of a class “for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles,

25 Harbor Division v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation

26 omitted; emphasis in original). But a district court “retains jurisdiction over an interlocutory order

27 -- and thus may reconsider, rescind, or modify such an order -- until a court of appeals grants a

1 That is the situation here. The grant of permission to appeal the certification order has

2 || terminated the Court’s authority to decertify the class. The parties are directed to meet and confer,

3 and be prepared to discuss proposed next steps with the Court at the September 7, 2023 status

4 conference. The consumer plaintiffs’ motion to authorize a notice of pendency to the consumer

5 plaintiff class, Dkt. No. 575, is denied.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: August 28, 2023

8

9

JAME NATO

10 United tates District Judge

11

12

©

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.