# In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation

> District Court, N.D. California · August 28, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076018

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 28, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076018

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076018. Public record. Not legal advice.