Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: DreamWorks’ anti-solicitation suit reassigned to Judge Koh, (Sep 24, 2014)
Law Firms Mentioned:Joseph Saveri Law Firm | Keker & Van Nest LLP | Mayer Brown LLP | Munger Tolles & Olson LLP | O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Organizations Mentioned:Adobe | Adobe Systems Inc. | Apple Inc. | DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. | Google Inc. | Intel Corp. | Keker & Van Nest, LLP | Mayer Brown, LLP | Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP | O'Melveny & Myers, LLP | Pixar
By Greg Hammond, J.D.
An anti-solicitation case involving DreamWorks (Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Case No. 3:14-CV-04062-VC) has been reassigned to Judge Koh in the federal district court in San Jose, California. Judge Koh signed a related case order yesterday, finding that the DreamWorks litigation is related to similar anti-solicitation litigation involving Google, Apple, and Adobe. The two cases will therefore be heard alongside one another (In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, September 23, 2013, Koh, L.).
In the recently filed DreamWorks case, an animator filed suit against a number of visual effects and animation companies—including DreamWorks, Pixar, Lucasfilm, The Walt Disney Co., Digital Domain, ImageMovers, and Sony—alleging that the companies suppressed and agreed to ranges on employee wages and salaries, and further entered into non-solicitation agreements. The anticompetitive conspiracy allegedly involved an agreement among executives that: (1) they would not “cold call” each other’s employees; (2) they would notify the other company when making an offer to an employee of the other company; and (3) the company making such an offer would decline to increase that offer if the current employer made a counteroffer.
Similarly, five employees in the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation case filed suit against Google, Apple, and Adobe, alleging that the companies colluded with each other to avoid poaching each other’s employees and to stabilize their compensation packages. Most recently, the court refused to grant preliminary approval of a $324 million settlement in this case, finding that the amount fell below the range of reasonableness. According to the court, the settlement fund would need to be at least $380 million, as the remaining defendants paid 95 percent of the class compensation.
The case number is 5:11-CV-02509-LHK.
Attorneys: Andrew Michael Purdy (Joseph Saveri Law Firm) for Siddharth Hariharan. Robert Addy Van Nest (Keker & Van Nest LLP) for Adobe Systems Inc. George A. Riley (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) for Apple Inc. Anne M. Selin (Mayer Brown LLP) for Google Inc. Gregory P. Stone (Munger Tolles & Olson LLP) for Intel Corp.
Companies: Adobe Systems Inc.; Apple Inc.; Google Inc.; Intel Corp.
Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews