McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTONIO MCKINNEY, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00312-JST
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
9 v. SETTLEMENT AND APPROVING
PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO FILE
10 CORSAIR GAMING, INC., AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. Re: ECF Nos. 165, 166 11
12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification and preliminary 14 approval of class action settlement (“Motion”). ECF No. 165. The Court finds this matter suitable 15 for resolution without oral argument, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and will grant 16 the Motion. 17 Plaintiffs filed the Motion after the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ initial 18 motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement for two reasons: (1) the Court was 19 “unable to determine whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of reasonableness,” 20 and (2) Plaintiffs did not sufficiently “address the variation between the claims asserted in the…