Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0902-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Spiro KAMAR; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RADIO SHACK CORPORATION, Defendant, Antonio Boatner, Jr., Objector-Appellant.
    No. 13-57157.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2015.
    Gwen Ellen Freeman, Andre Emilio Jar-dini, Esquire, Kevin James Stack, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Glendale, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Antonio Boatner, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Andrew M. Paley, Esquire, Kiran A. Seldon, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Boatner, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting final approval of a proposed settlement in a class action suit for labor violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order granting final approval of the proposed settlement. Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting final approval of the proposed settlement because the proposed settlement was fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See id. at 959 (setting forth factors to consider in evaluating' proposed settlement).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

All pending motions are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is* not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.