This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices

Michael Young and Dan Dolar, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Mophie, Inc.

Published: Nov. 20, 2020 | Filing Date: May 2, 2019 |

Case number: 8:19-cv-00827-JVS-DFM Settlement –  $335,000

Judge

James V. Selna

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Nona Yegazarian
(Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP)

Nathan M. Smith
(Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP)


Defendant

Daniel M. Livingston
(Payne & Fears LLP)

Scott O. Luskin
(Payne & Fears LLP)

Benjamin A. Nix
(Payne & Fears LLP)

David W. Tufts
(Durham, Jones & Pinegar)

Lyndon R. Bradshaw
(Durham Jones & Pinegar)


Facts

Plaintiffs Michael Young and Dan Dolar alleged they bought portable chargers for their phones. The charger was manufactured by Mophie, Inc. and plaintiffs alleged they did not perform as plaintiffs expected. As a result, plaintiffs sued Mophie in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of customers who purchased Mophie portable chargers in California and Florida.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant failed to properly identify the output of the chargers on the packaging, instead merely stating the battery had 2,950 mAh of power as advertised. Plaintiff contended that defendant made similar statements for its product line. At the time the portable chargers were being sold to consumers, defendant was allegedly aware of its products' limited capacity and still marketed them in a way that caused false expectations in customers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant disputed all material allegations, and specifically denied that its packaging was misleading in any way. Also, plaintiffs even admitted in depositions that they knew that the portable battery chargers could not deliver the full amount of internal battery capacity when they purchased the devices.

Result

The court approved a $335,000 settlement between the parties that included a $5,000 service award to the named plaintiffs. The settlement agreement acknowledged that defendant was not admitting liability or fault of these disputed claims. The compromise did not result in any payment to the class, but only required defendant to update labeling on defendant's packaging and website to clarify that mAh references pertain to the capacity of the internal battery of its portable battery chargers.


#136091

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390