Judge May Sanction Animation Workers Antitrust Settlement Objectors

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A California federal judge has reportedly said she may sanction two Disney producers who have objected to a $170 million settlement that would resolve an antitrust class action lawsuit alleging Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar and other studios agreed not to poach the other companies’ animation workers.

Last week, Disney producers Charles Williams and Alice Goldstone filed their opposition to the motion for final approval of the animation workers anti-poaching class action settlement, claiming Class Counsel failed to adequately represent the Class.

Williams and Goldstone claim they were not provided with adequate notice that their claims were “effectively abandoned” when the Class was certified. They also argue that their individual claims against Disney may be time-barred due to the lack of notice. They allege misconduct during the discovery phase of the litigation caused producers to be improperly excluded from the Class. The objectors’ attorneys also expressed concern that other Disney employees may have been misidentified and left out of the class action settlement.

The objectors asked the judge to deny final approval to the animation workers’ antitrust class action settlement or amend the Class certification order to include Disney producers.

Class Counsel subsequently filed a bid for sanctions against the objectors’ attorneys, arguing that they didn’t have standing to object and that the objection was holding up final approval of the deal.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh indicated she would postpone granting final approval to the animation workers antitrust class action settlement until she had a chance to rule on the Class Counsel’s bid for sanctions. She indicated the Disney producers may not have standing to object to the deal and their attempt to delay final approval may warrant sanctions against them.

If approved, the animation workers anti-poaching settlement could provide 10,870 animation workers with more than $13,000 each. At the final fairness hearing for the class action settlement, Judge Koh said she does “not think it is right to hold up payment” to more than 10,000 people when the objectors are not members of the Class. She noted that the producers were free to pursue their claims in a different court if they chose to do so.

In February, the Walt Disney Company, Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to pay $100 million to settle the animation workers anti-poaching class action lawsuit. These settlements join a $50 million class action settlement with DreamWorks Animation and a $19 million settlement with Sony Pictures Imageworks and Blue Sky.

The animation workers antitrust class action lawsuit was initially filed in September 2014 an alleged that the entertainment companies engaged in an anticompetitive scheme under which they agreed not to hire each other’s animation workers. This scheme was allegedly designed with the intent of suppressing animation workers’ salaries throughout the industry.

The Class is represented by Jeff D. Friedman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Marc M. Seltzer of Susman Godfrey LLP and Daniel A. Small and Brent W. Johnson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The Animation Workers Anti-Poaching Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04062, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.