Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arabella LEMUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Singh MADAR, Objector-Appellant, v. H & R Block Enterprises, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16628.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2015.
    Dale Arthur Anderson, Louis M. Marlin, Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Irvine, CA, Marcus J. Bradley, Stanley D. Saltzman, Esquire, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP, Agoura Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Paul Singh Madar, pro se.
    Robert J. Carty, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Houston, TX, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Andrew McNaught, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, Carrie A. Gonell, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Irvine, CA, Andrew M. Paley, Esquire, Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esquire, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Singh Madar appeals pro se from the district court’s order disallowing his claim against a class action settlement fund. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 565 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir.1977). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing Madar’s claim to a portion of the settlement where Madar’s claim was not timely received, and Madar “made no showing that [his] claim was treated in a fashion inconsistent with those of other claimants similarly situated.” Id. (“In reviewing the court’s exercise of its discretion, we are not to substitute our ideas of fairness for those of the district judge in the absence of evidence that [she] acted arbitrarily[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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