Study of Class Action Objector Appeals

in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals

Report to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules

of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Marie Leary

Federal Judicial Center

October 2013

This report was undertaken at the request of the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules and is 

in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and development for the improvement of judicial administration. While the Center regards the content as responsible and valuable, it does not 

reflect policy or recommendations of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center.

iii

Contents

Executive Summary, 1

Study Approach, 2

Frequency of Class Action Objector Appeals, 4

Final Disposition of Class Action Objector Actions, 8

Rule 7 Cost Bonds and Class Action Objector Appeals, 14

Appendices, 19

Appendix A: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 21

Appendix B: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 37

Appendix C: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 51

FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 1

Executive Summary

This study focused on class action objector appeals from class action cases, filed in the district 

courts on or after January 1, 2008, in which final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed. The objector appeals studied were filed from January 1, 2008, 

through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and 

through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit.

• Our searches of the CM/ECF district court databases of the districts in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits were limited to cases filed on or after January 1, 2008. We identified instances in which final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was 

granted and appealed through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 

2013, in the Second Circuit, and through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. Objector appeals in these cases were not common (but see footnote 2 and surrounding text). Thirtysix objector appeals were filed in 12 class action settlements in the Second Circuit; 27 objector appeals were filed in 8 class action settlements in the Seventh Circuit; and 108 objector appeals were filed in 49 class action settlements in the Ninth Circuit. These objector 

appeals represented less than one percent of the total number of appeals filed in each of 

these three circuits from the beginning of fiscal year 2008 through March 31, 2013.

• Objector appeals were typically made in large cases, primarily in the largest districts within the circuits. In the Second Circuit, 92% of the class action objector appeals originated 

from the Southern District of New York; in the Seventh Circuit, 73% originated from the 

Northern District of Illinois; and in the Ninth Circuit, 86% originated from the Northern, 

Central, and Southern Districts of California.

• The majority of class action objector appeals (83%, or 142 out of 171 total objector appeals 

identified in our study) were filed from court-approved settlements in consolidated class actions or multidistrict litigation (MDL) class actions with large nationwide classes of plaintiffs.

• The pattern with respect to voluntary dismissal of appeals is different in the Second Circuit than in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. Although the high percentage of class action 

objector appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit may alter the pattern, the trend in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits is for objector appeals to be voluntarily dismissed pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) prior to the filing of an appellant brief and 

within 200 days from the date on which the appeal was filed.

• In the Second Circuit, 63% of terminated appeals (19 of 30) were decided on the merits, 

in contrast to no objector appeals decided on the merits in the Seventh Circuit, and only 

13% of the terminated appeals decided on the merits in the Ninth Circuit. Out of a combined total of 126 terminated objector appeals identified in the study, the objectors or appellants were successful in their appeals on only three occasions. 

• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 cost bonds were requested in 70% of the objector 

appeals (19 out of the 27 total objector appeals) filed in the Seventh Circuit; 32% (or 6 

out of 19) of these bond requests were granted. Cost bonds were requested in 42% of objector appeals (15 out of the 36 total objector appeals) filed in the Second Circuit; none of 

the plaintiffs’ bond requests were granted. In the Ninth Circuit, bonds were requested in 

32% of objector appeals (35 out of the 108 objector appeals), and 66% of these requests 

were granted (23 out of 35).
2 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Study Approach

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which settlements reached in Rule

23-certified class actions are appealed by class action objectors, generally defined as one or more 

class members who submit an objection to the proposed settlement in the district court prior to 

final approval of the class action settlement. To identify the cases in which objector appeals were 

filed, we first conducted computerized searches of the CM/ECF district court databases to identify the universe of cases in which such an appeal might possibly have been filed, and then we examined the docket sheets of these cases to determine whether such an appeal had actually been 

taken. If such an appeal had been taken, we coded information relevant to the proposals currently 

under consideration by the Appellate Rules Committee, including whether the appeals by class

action objectors were determined to be of a frivolous nature, the final disposition of the objector 

appeals, and whether a Rule 7 cost bond was requested and imposed on the appealing objectors.

1

Owing to time constraints and the difficulty of identifying class action objector appeals with 

automated searches of the CM/ECF databases, the current report is limited to cases filed on or 

after January 1, 2008, in three circuits (Second, Seventh, and Ninth) and to objector appeals filed 

from January 1, 2008, through either March 1, 2013 (Seventh Circuit), June 1, 2013 (Second Circuit), or July 1, 2013 (Ninth Circuit). The Second and Ninth Circuits were chosen based on the

increased likelihood of the district courts of both circuits having an above-average number of

class actions. The Seventh Circuit was chosen as having district courts with an average level of 

class action filings. Preliminary results based on the districts in the Seventh Circuit were shared in

an oral report at the Committee’s spring 2013 meeting.

Limiting the search to cases filed after January 1, 2008, likely resulted in an incidence estimate 

at the lower boundary of the actual rate because some of the class action cases were still pending

at the time of our electronic search. In addition, the search would not have captured objectorappeal activity in either pending or closed cases filed before January 1, 2008. However, basing the 

study on a filing cohort aimed at capturing appeals in recently filed class actions sets relatively 

unambiguous parameters for the cases included in the study, which in turn allows more straightforward interpretation. Currently, Federal Judicial Center staff are exploring whether it will be 

fruitful to extend the searches to include earlier filing years, to use an alternative sampling strategy, or to follow up on any cases in the current sample that were pending at the time of our initial 

work.2

																																																												

1. Standard codes to identify appeals by class action objectors in the CM/ECF databases do not exist in either the 

district or appellate courts, and the docketing events that reliably identify Rule 23 class action settlements with objector 

activity occur at the district-court level. Thus, for each circuit, a tailored search was developed and run for each district 

within the circuit using the same five-year time period, resulting in a list of cases that would include (if present) cases filed 

on or after January 1, 2008, with class action settlements that have been granted final approval and from which one or 

more class members who objected to the proposed settlement filed a notice of appeal. After identifying all legitimate objector appeals in each district, the results were compiled to calculate the circuit-level rate of appeal.

2. Alternative sampling methods include using a termination cohort or a pending cohort of cases. A termination 

cohort of cases would have provided complete information about the incidence of objector appeals in those cases, but 

comparisons would likely have been less reliable because the sample would include cases filed in many different years, with 

some being short-lived cases and some longer lasting. Using a pending cohort also would include cases filed in many different years, with some being short-lived cases and some longer lasting, without the benefit of having complete information about incidence. It may be that a combination sampling strategy will ultimately produce the best estimate of incidence. We recently searched the CM/ECF databases for objector appeal activity from January 1, 2008, through September 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 3

A comprehensive record of the results for each of the three circuits is presented in the appendices attached to this report. The appendix for each circuit lists, by district, the class action cases

with one or more objector appeals identified in our searches, and for each of these cases the following information was collected:

• whether the case had been consolidated as an MDL by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation;

• whether the case is part of a consolidated class action within the district; 

• the number of objections submitted by objectors prior to the court’s grant of final approval to the class action settlement; 

• the date upon which the court granted final approval to the class action settlement or settlements and final judgment from which the objector could appeal, including whether the 

court also awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses;

• the total number of appeals filed by objectors for each case;

• the date on which the notice of appeal was filed in the district court; the name of the objector or objectors filing the notice of appeal; the name of the attorneys (if any) listed on 

the notice of appeal; name of the attorneys filing appearances on behalf of objectors in the 

appellate court (if different from the attorney listed on the notice of appeal or if the notice 

of appeal was filed by the objectors pro se);

• for each appeal identified, the current status of the appeal—either “still pending” or the

date of final disposition of the appeal as indicated by the appellate court mandate and the 

nature of the final disposition (voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a Rule 42(b) motion by 

the objectors/appellants or per stipulation of the parties; appeal dismissed because of procedural deficiencies; or per decision by the appellate court on the merits);

• whether or not a motion requesting imposition of a Rule 7 cost bond was made—if so, 

whether the motion was granted and, if granted, the amount of the final bond imposed; 

and

• for each circuit, documentation of each of the events described above for each relevant

case, settlement, and appeal. 

The following sections of this report summarize the study findings, which are included in greater 

detail in the appendices, with respect to: the frequency of objector appeals during the period 

studied, the final disposition of the objector appeals identified, and Rule 7 cost bond activity in 

each of the three circuits studied.

																																																																																																																																																																																																			

11, 2013, in any pending case regardless of filing year of the underlying case. These searches suggest that the low incidence 

of objector appeals found in our more detailed study would be replicated in a more expansive study in all districts except 

the Southern District of New York. The recent search for this district suggests the incidence may be higher than what is 

reported in this report. However, we cannot make definitive statements without additional review.
4 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Frequency of Class Action Objector Appeals

As described above, the number of objector appeals filed in each of the three circuits during the 

study period was derived from a compilation of the verified objector appeals identified in the districts within the respective circuits. 

For each district included in our search, the table below shows the number of court-approved 

Rule 23-certified class action settlements from which one or more objector appeals were filed 

during the five-year study period, and the total number of objector appeals filed in the respective 

circuit court from those settlements. For each of the districts in our study in which objector appeals were identified, except the Southern District of Illinois and the District of Nevada, there are

differences in the number of court-approved Rule 23-certified class action settlements appealed 

from and the number of objector appeals from the district that were filed in the circuit court. The

differences are the result of some cases having multiple objector appeals from the court-approved 

settlement. Multiple appeals from the same settlement are usually filed by different objectors,

3

but in several cases the same objector filed more than one notice of appeal to the same settlement.4

In addition, in the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California the 

number of court-approved Rule 23-certified class action settlements from which an appeal was 

taken is greater than the number of class action cases listed for those districts.5 This is because the 

large MDL class actions had more than one court-approved settlement.

																																																												

3. See, e.g., Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2009) (12 separate appeals filed in 

the Second Circuit by different objectors); In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (No. II), 

No. 2:08-md-01999 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2008) (8 appeals filed in the Seventh Circuit by different objectors); In re Online 

DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., No. 4:09-md-02029 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009) (6 appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit by different 

objectors).

4. See Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2010). Objectors appealed from the 

December 20, 2012, order granting final approval of the settlement and from the May 3, 2013, order awarding attorneys’ 

fees and expenses.

5. See In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litig., No.

1:09-md-2058 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2009) (1 objector appeal was filed from the April 15, 2013, order awarding attorneys’ fees 

for the January 24, 2013, settlement of the consolidated derivative actions and 4 appeals were filed from the April 8 and 9, 

2013, orders approving settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees for the consolidated securities actions); and In re TFT-LCD 

(Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1827, No. 3:07-md-1827 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2007) (5 objector appeals were filed 

from the July 11, 2012, settlement and 8 appeals were filed from the March 29, 2013, settlement).
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 5

Class Action Objector Appeals Filed in the 

Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals6

District Court

Court Approved Rule 23-Certified Class Action 

Settlements Appealed by 1 or More Objectors

Separate Objector 

Appeals Filed 

District of Connecticut 0 0

Eastern District of New York 2 3

Northern District of New York 0 0

Southern District of New York 10 33

Western District of New York 0 0

District of Vermont 0 0

Total for Second Circuit 12 36

Central District of Illinois 0 0

Northern District of Illinois 5 17

Southern District of Illinois 1 1

Northern District of Indiana 0 0

Southern District of Indiana 0 0

Eastern District of Wisconsin 2 9

Western District of Wisconsin 0 0

Total for Seventh Circuit 8 27

District of Alaska 0 0

District of Arizona 1 3

Central District of California 8 12

Eastern District of California 0 0

Northern District of California 24 65

Southern District of California 8 16

District of Idaho 0 0

District of Montana 0 0

District of Nevada 1 1

District of Oregon 0 0

Eastern District of Washington 0 0

Western District of Washington 7 11

Total for Ninth Circuit 49 108

																																																												

6. This table includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or 

after January 1, 2008, in which final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed from 

between January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and 

through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. Owing to time constraints, the total number of objector appeals filed in the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not include objector appeals, if any, that may have originated from the Districts of 

Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. 
6 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Although the results summarized here were obtained from searches conducted in the district 

courts of only three circuit courts of appeals, if similar searches of the CM/ECF databases in the 

district courts in the other ten circuits were conducted, we would expect similar results.

• Overall, the percentage of appeals filed by class action objectors is likely to be small compared to the total number of appeals filed in each circuit, even if we take into account that 

the incidence rates reported here are likely lower bounds because the search was limited 

to cases filed after January 1, 2008.

7

As indicated in the table above, in the Second Circuit 36 objector appeals were filed in 

the 12 class action settlements identified from the approximate five-year sample of filings. 

Thirty-six appeals is less than 1% of the total number of appeals filed in the Second Circuit from the beginning of fiscal year 2008 through March 31, 2013.

8 Similarly, 27 objector appeals were filed in 8 class action settlements in the Seventh Circuit. Twenty-seven 

appeals is less than 1% of the total number of appeals filed in the Seventh Circuit from the 

beginning of fiscal year 2008 through March 31, 2013.9 And finally, 108 objector appeals 

were filed in 49 class action settlements in the Ninth Circuit. One hundred and eight appeals is less than 1% of the total number of appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit from the beginning of fiscal year 2008 through March 31, 2013.10

At this time, we do not have a count of the total number of Rule 23-certified class action settlements granted final approval from which no objector appeal was taken during 

the time period of the study. It is likely, however, that the number of court-approved class 

action settlements appealed by objectors would be a small percentage of such cases. 

• The pattern of origination of objector appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits 

will likely also be seen in other circuits—that is, most of the objector appeals will be found 

in the larger districts or in districts considered to be favorable forums for class action filings or frequent transferee districts for MDL consolidations. No or very few objector appeals will be found in smaller districts or districts less popular for class action filings.

Thus, the total number of class action objector appeals, by circuit as well as nationwide,

will likely originate from a few districts rather than being spread relatively evenly among 

the districts.

In the Second Circuit, 92% of the class action objector appeals originated from one 

district—the Southern District of New York. With the exception of the Eastern District of 

New York, where a total of three objector appeals were filed, there were no objector appeals at all originating from class action settlements granted final approval in the remaining districts of the sample filing from the Second Circuit.

Sixty-three percent of the objector appeals (17 out of 27 total appeals) filed in the Seventh Circuit originated from the Northern District of Illinois, and all but one of the remaining 10 appeals were filed from two class action settlements in one other district—the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin. Except for one objector appeal filed from the Southern Dis-

																																																												

7. See supra note 2 and the surrounding text discussing the implications of a filing cohort limiting our sample to cases filed on or after January 1, 2008.

8. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal Court Management Statistics, available at 

http://jnet.ao.dcn/resources/statistics/federal-court-management-statistics. Note that these numbers will include filings 

from October 1, 2007, to December 31, 2007, which are not included in the study’s search period.

9. Id.

10. Id.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 7

trict of Illinois, no class action objectors appealed in the remaining Seventh Circuit districts during the study period.

In the Ninth Circuit, 86% of the total number of objector appeals originated from 

three of the California districts, with 60% coming from the Northern District of California (65 out of 108 total appeals), and the remaining 26% split almost evenly between the 

Southern District of California (16 appeals) and the Central District of California (12 appeals). The majority of the remaining 14% of objector appeals originated from the Western District of Washington (11 of the 15 remaining appeals), with the Districts of Arizona 

(3 appeals) and Nevada (1 appeal) being the only remaining Ninth Circuit districts where 

an objector appealed from a class action settlement. Although we have not collected or 

examined data for the remaining ten circuits, it is likely that the upper limits of an overall 

nationwide range of objector appeals would be found in the Northern District of California, with 65 objector appeals from 24 court-approved Rule 23-certified class action settlements, and in the Ninth Circuit overall, with 108 objector appeals.

• The majority of class action objector appeals are filed from final settlements in consolidated class actions or MDL class actions with large nationwide classes of plaintiffs.

In the Second Circuit, 89% of the total number of objector appeals (32 out of 36 objector appeals) were filed from court-approved settlements in either MDL class actions 

(18 appeals) or consolidated class actions (14 appeals). In the Seventh Circuit, 96% of objector appeals were filed from settlements granted final approval in either MDL class actions (16 out of 27 total objector appeals) or in consolidated class actions (10 appeals). 

And in the Ninth Circuit, 78% (84 out of 108 total objector appeals) were filed from 

court-approved settlements reached in either MDL class actions (49 appeals) or consolidated class actions (35 appeals filed). 
8 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Final Disposition of Class Action Objector Appeals

The table below shows the current disposition of the objector appeals identified in each of the 

three study circuits. All of the objector appeals can be placed into one of four disposition categories:

1. the appeal is pending as of August 31, 2013; 

2. the appeal has been dismissed voluntarily, either pursuant to the appellate court granting 

the objectors’ Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) motion to dismiss the appeal or 

granting the parties’ Rule 42(b) stipulation to dismiss the appeal (usually with prejudice);

3. the appeal has been dismissed pursuant to court order owing to a procedural deficiency 

including lack of standing to maintain the appeal, default for failure to file the required 

appellate forms or to file the brief and/or appendix by the due date, failure to prosecute 

the appeal, or failure to pay the docketing fee; or

4. the appeal has been decided on the merits, resulting in an order either dismissing the appeal, affirming the judgment of the district court, or reversing the judgment in part and 

remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.

In addition, for appeals that were voluntarily dismissed, dismissed because of procedural deficiencies, or decided on the merits, the table shows the average length of time in days from the 

date on which the objectors/appellants filed the notice of appeal in the district court and the date 

on which final disposition of the appeal occurred in the appellate court, signified by issuance of a 

mandate pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a) indicating that the appeal has 

been dismissed.

Finally, for objector appeals that were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b), the table 

indicates the number of such appeals in which the objectors/appellants filed their appellant brief

prior to filing a Rule 42(b) motion seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal, either pursuant to a 

motion brought only by the objector or pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 9

Disposition of Class Action Objector Appeals Filed in the

Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals11

Court of Appeals

(total # of objector 

appeals filed)

Appeals Pending

(as of 

08/31/2013)

Appeals Voluntarily Dismissed

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)

Appeal 

Dismissed 

Because of

Procedural 

Deficiency

Appeal 

Decided on 

the Merits

Pursuant to 

Objector(s) 

Rule 42(b) 

Motion to 

Dismiss12

Pursuant to 

Parties’ 

Rule 42(b) 

Stipulation to 

Dismiss13

Second Circuit

(36 total appeals) 6

6

514 1915

1 5

Average length of time 

(in days) between filing 

notice of appeal and 

final disposition of 

appeal16

N/A 270 days

[92 to 544 days]

# Objector appeals voluntarily 

dismissed:

• under 50 days: 0

• between 50 and 100 days: 1

• between 100 and 200 days: 1

• between 200 and 300 days: 2 • over 300 days: 2

146 days

[78 to 218 

days]

396 days

[85 to 548 

days]

544 days

[N/A]

215 days

[92 to 373 days]

Number of appeals 

voluntarily dismissed in 

which appellant brief 

was filed prior to final 

disposition of appeal

N/A 1 N/A N/A

1 0

																																																												

11. Includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or after January 1, 2008, in which final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed from January 1, 

2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and through July 1, 

2013, in the Ninth Circuit. Owing to time constraints, the total number of objector appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals does not include objector appeals, if any, that may have originated from the Districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands owing to time constraints.

12. The request is brought solely by the objectors/appellants (or by counsel on behalf of the objectors/appellants) 

asking the court to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

13. The request is brought by the parties to the appeal per stipulation (or by counsel on behalf of the parties to the 

appeal)—including the objectors/appellants, class plaintiffs/appellees, and may also include the defendants—asking the 

court to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b). 

14. In the Second Circuit, 5 objector appeals were dismissed for procedural deficiencies, including lack of standing to 

appeal; default because of failure to file required appellate forms (2 appeals); and failure to file brief and/or appendix by 

due date (2 appeals).

15. In the Second Circuit, 19 objector appeals were decided on the merits: 2 appeals were dismissed and 17 appeals 

affirmed the judgment of the district court by summary order.

16. The time period is measured from the day the objectors/appellants files the notice of appeal in the district court 

to the day the appellate court issues the mandate pursuant to Rule 41(a) finally disposing of the appeal. The range indicating the shortest time to disposition and the longest time period in days is provided where more than one objector appeal 

was filed.
10 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Disposition of Class Action Objector Appeals Filed in the

Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals11

Court of Appeals

(total # of objector 

appeals filed)

Appeals

Pending

(as of 

08/31/2013)

Appeals Voluntarily Dismissed

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)

Appeal 

Dismissed 

Because of

Procedural 

Deficiency

Appeal 

Decided on 

the Merits

Pursuant to 

Objector(s) 

Rule 42(b) 

Motion to 

Dismiss12

Pursuant to 

Parties’ 

Rule 42(b) 

Stipulation to 

Dismiss13

Seventh Circuit

(27 total appeals)

0 27 0 0

19 817

Average length of time 

(in days) between filing 

notice of appeal and 

final disposition of 

appeal18

N/A 103 days19

[6 to 177 days]

# Objector appeals voluntarily 

dismissed:

• under 50 days: 7

• between 50 and 100 days: 2

• between 100 and 200 days: 12

• between 200 and 300 days: 0

• over 300 days: 0

N/A N/A

112 days

[19 to 177 days]

14 days

[6 to 22 days]

Number of appeals 

voluntarily dismissed in 

which appellant brief 

was filed prior to final 

disposition of appeal

N/A 9 N/A N/A

320 621

																																																												

17. Six of the 8 objector appeals in the Seventh Circuit that were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the parties’ Rule 

42(b) stipulation during our study period were dismissed only after the majority of a three-judge panel concluded that the 

terms of the parties’ separate settlement of the dispute underlying the appeals did not undo or affect the original settlement 

approved by the district court in any way. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 710 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 

2013). For additional details, see the report of findings from the Seventh Circuit at Appendix B. 

18. See supra note 16.

19. The 6 appeals filed from the settlement reached in Nat’l Council on Comp. Ins., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., No. 1: 07-cv2898 (N.D. Ill. filed May 24, 2007) and Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-2026 (N.D. Ill. filed April 1, 

2009) were not included within the group of voluntarily dismissed appeals for an analysis of disposition time because their 

inclusion would have made the average life span of these appeals appear misleadingly high. The Seventh Circuit granted the 

parties’ stipulation to dismiss these 6 appeals, but the additional information requested and time needed for the panel to 

issue its decision resulted in 431 days elapsing from the filing of the initial notices of appeal. 

20. In 1 of the 3 objector appeals in which the objector/appellant filed an appellant brief, the brief was rejected as 

procedurally deficient and the objector filed a Rule 42(b) motion for voluntary dismissal before refiling a corrected brief.

21. Appellant briefs were filed in the 6 consolidated appeals taken by 2 objectors in Nat’l Council on Comp. Ins., Inc. v. 

Am. Int’l Grp., No. 1: 07-cv-2898 (N.D. Ill. filed May 24, 2007) and Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 1:09-

cv-2026 (N.D. Ill. filed April 1, 2009). On November 29, 2012, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals and took them under advisement. On January 11, 2013, before the panel issued its decision, all parties to the 6

appeals reached a settlement and they all agreed (except for one appellee) to stipulate and file with the court an Agreed 

Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice. However, on January 14, 2013, the court ordered the parties to supplement their 

agreed stipulation of dismissal to address whether the settlement of the dispute underlying the appeals negatively affected 

the class settlement approved in February 2012. On March 25, 2013, the majority granted the parties’ stipulation and dismissed the appeals. See also supra notes 17 & 19. 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 11

Disposition of Class Action Objector Appeals Filed in the

Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals11

Court of Appeals

(total # of objector 

appeals filed)

Appeals

Pending

(as of 

08/31/2013)

Appeals Voluntarily Dismissed

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)

Appeal 

Dismissed 

Because of

Procedural 

Deficiency

Appeal 

Decided on 

the Merits

Pursuant to 

Objector(s) 

Rule 42(b) 

Motion to 

Dismiss12

Pursuant to 

Parties’ 

Rule 42(b) 

Stipulation to 

Dismiss13

Ninth Circuit

(108 total appeals)

39 53 722 923

27 26

Average length of time 

(in days) between filing 

notice of appeal and 

final disposition of 

appeal24

N/A 86 days

[7 to 435 days] 

# Objector appeals voluntarily 

dismissed:

• under 50 days: 19

• between 50 and 100 days: 12

• between 100 and 200 days: 19

• between 200 and 300 days: 1

• over 300 days: 2

172 days

[42 to 352 

days]

461 days

[94 to 603 

days]

104 days

[25 to 435 days]

69 days

[7 to158 days]

Number of appeals 

voluntarily dismissed in 

which appellant brief 

was filed prior to final 

disposition of appeal

N/A 1 N/A N/A

1 0

None of the appeals in the Seventh Circuit and only 17% of those in the Second Circuit were still 

pending during the study, but 36% of those in the Ninth Circuit were. 

In the Seventh Circuit, all of the identified class action objector appeals were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b). A similar disposition trend is evident in the Ninth Circuit, although because of the high percentage of class action objector appeals in this circuit still pending—appeals that may be voluntarily dismissed or disposed of on the merits—the pattern might 

change. About two-thirds (77%, or 53 out of 69) of the terminated class action objector appeals in 

the Ninth Circuit were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b). In the Seventh Circuit, of 

the dismissals pursuant to Rule 42(b), about two-thirds were by motion and about a third by 

stipulation. In the Ninth Circuit, the dismissals were split almost evenly between motion and 

stipulation.

																																																												

22. In the Ninth Circuit, 7 objector appeals were dismissed for procedural deficiencies, including failure to prosecute 

(6 appeals) and failure to pay the docketing fee.

23. In the Ninth Circuit, 9 objector appeals were decided on the merits: 6 appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, and the judgment of the district court was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded per published opinion in three appeals. For additional details on the three appeals in which the objector/appellant was successful, see Ninth 

Circuit Appeal No. 10-55129 from the settlement in Fairchild v. AOL, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-03568 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2009); 

and Ninth Circuit Appeal Nos. 11-55674 and 11-55706 from the settlement in Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 3:09-cv-01786 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2009).

24. See supra note 16.
12 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

In the Second Circuit, a decidedly different disposition trend is found: of the 30 objector appeals that had been terminated, only 6 (or 20%) of the objector appeals were voluntarily dismissed, and all but one of these dismissals was pursuant to the parties’ Rule 42(b) stipulation of 

dismissal.

Dismissals owing to procedural deficiencies resulting from the objectors/appellants’ failure to 

perform a requirement essential for the appeal to proceed (such as file forms required under local 

circuit rules or payment of the docketing fee) arguably could be considered de facto voluntary 

dismissals. Therefore, we examined whether the above trends were still evident if the appeals 

dismissed because of procedural deficiencies (5 appeals in the Second Circuit, no appeals in the 

Seventh, and 7 appeals in the Ninth Circuit) were added to the number of appeals voluntarily 

dismissed pursuant to a Rule 42(b) motion or stipulation. Although the percentage increased in 

the Second Circuit (from 20% to 37%) and the Ninth Circuit (from 77% to 87%), the general 

trend toward voluntary dismissal in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and toward a merits disposition in the Second Circuit remained. Although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 cost bonds 

are discussed in the final section of this report, we note here that procedural deficiencies resulting 

in the dismissal of the 12 objector appeals discussed above did not include dismissals owing to 

the objectors’ failure to pay a required Rule 7 cost bond.

Examining disposition from a different angle, 63% of the terminated appeals (19 of 30) in the 

Second Circuit were decided on the merits, including two appeals that were dismissed on the 

merits and 17 objector appeals where the judgment of the district court was affirmed by summary 

order. In contrast, no objector appeals were decided on the merits in the Seventh Circuit, and only 13% of the terminated appeals (9 out of 69) were decided on the merits in the Ninth Circuit, 

including six appeals affirming the judgment of the district court and three appeals reversing the 

judgment in part, affirming in part, and remanding the case back to the district court for further 

proceedings.25 Thus, out of a combined total of 126 terminated objector appeals identified in the 

study, the objectors/appellants were successful in their appeals on only three occasions.26 Again, it 

should be noted that some of the pending appeals may result in favorable merits terminations.

Examining objector appeals terminated by voluntary dismissal, the length of time between 

the filing of the notice of appeal in the district court to the issuance of the mandate dismissing the 

appeal in the court of appeal was shorter in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits than in the Second 

Circuit. In both the Seventh and the Ninth Circuits, almost all of the objectors/appellants dismissed their appeals in under 200 days, but in the Second Circuit, two-thirds of the appeals (4 

out of 6) lasted over 200 days. The relatively long life of some of the Second Circuit appeals may 

be the result of the unique circumstances of the complex cases from which they originate. And 

again, the number of pending cases in the Ninth Circuit leaves open the possibility that this trend 

of shorter dismissal times might change. More specifically, examination of the disposition times 

shows the following:

																																																												

25. See supra note 23.

26. A closer look at the decisions of the appellate court shows that the court did not reject the district court’s approval of the settlement agreement as a whole, but rejected the lower court’s approval of a specific provision of the agreements.

See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2012). After a careful review of the class settlement, the Ninth 

Circuit concluded that the district court did not apply the correct legal standards governing cy pres distributions and thus 

abused its discretion in approving the settlement. See also Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2011).
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 13

• In the Seventh Circuit, excluding the six appeals voluntarily dismissed in the Safeco case,

27

100% (all 21) of the voluntarily dismissed appeals were dismissed under 200 days, and 

slightly less than half of these were dismissed within the first 100 days. 

• In the Ninth Circuit, 94% of the objector appeals dismissed voluntarily were done so under 200 days, and slightly more than half of these were terminated within the first 100 

days.

• In all three circuits, voluntarily dismissed appeals pursuant to the parties’ stipulation lasted on average a shorter number of days (215 days in the Second Circuit, 14 days in the 

Seventh Circuit, and 69 days in the Ninth Circuit) compared to the appeals voluntarily 

dismissed pursuant to a motion submitted only by the objectors (on average 544 days in 

the Second Circuit, 112 days in the Seventh Circuit, and 104 days in the Ninth Circuit). 

• Assuming appeals dismissed for procedural deficiencies are de facto voluntary dismissals, 

the 146-day average length of time for final disposition of those appeals in the Second 

Circuit falls closer in line with the average in the Seventh Circuit (103 days) and Ninth 

Circuit (86 days).

If an appellant has made the time and financial commitment to file the opening appellant 

brief, then this can be viewed as a likely predictor that the appellant does not intend to dismiss 

the appeal. Likewise, if an appellant has not filed the opening brief and has requested numerous 

extensions of the deadline on which the brief is due, this can be seen as a likely predictor that the 

filer does not intend to pursue the appeal to obtain a decision on the merits. For each objector 

appeal in the study that was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), information was collected on the significant documents and/or motions that were 

filed by the objectors/appellants prior to filing of the request for a Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal. 

The findings are identical in the Second and Ninth Circuits, in which an appellant brief was 

filed in only one of the objector appeals voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b). In the Seventh Circuit, however, an appellate brief was filed in 9 out of 27 such appeals. It is important to 

note, however that this number is skewed by the Safeco case. Briefs were filed in the 6 appeals associated with Safeco prior to oral arguments, but before the panel issued its opinion the parties 

settled and filed an agreement upon stipulation to dismiss the appeals. Also, in another of the appeals in which the objector/appellant filed the appellant brief with the court, the court rejected 

the brief for procedural deficiencies and the appellant voluntarily dismissed his appeal instead of 

refiling the brief.28

To summarize our findings with respect to final disposition of the objector appeals that we 

identified in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, the trend in two of these circuits (Seventh 

and Ninth) appears to be that these objector appeals are overwhelmingly terminated voluntarily 

pursuant to Rule 42(b) prior to the filing of an appellant brief and within 200 days from the date

on which the appeal was filed. 

																																																												

27. After 431 days the majority of a three-judge panel granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the appeals filed from the settlement reached in Nat’l Council on Comp. Ins., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., No. 1: 07-cv-2898 (N.D. Ill. 

filed May 24, 2007) and Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-2026 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 1, 2009), while 

the panel was preparing to issue its decision on the merits following oral arguments. See discussion of Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. 

v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 710 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2013), supra notes 17, 19, & 21. 

28. See Appeal No. 11-2588 filed in In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Tax Litig., MDL 2147, No. 1:10-cv02278 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2010).
14 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Rule 7 Cost Bonds and Class Action Objector Appeals

The table below summarizes the data collected on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 cost 

bond activity from the objector appeals identified in our searches. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 Cost Bond Activity in 

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits29

Circuit Objector Appeals in Which Plaintiffs 

Filed Motion for a Rule 7 Cost Bond

Disposition of Plaintiffs’ 

Rule 7 Bond Requests

Second

(36 Total Objector Appeals)

Total Number of Appeals

for Which Plaintiffs Requested Bond: 1530

Average Bond Amount

Requested Per Appeal: $25,50031

Total Number of Bond

Requests Not Ruled On: 232

Total Number of Bond

Requests Denied: 1333

Total Number of Bond

Requests Granted: 0

Average Amount of Bond

Imposed Per Appeal: N/A

																																																												

29. This table includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or 

after January 1, 2008, in which final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed between January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013, in the Seventh Circuit, through June 1, 2013, in the Second Circuit, and 

through July 1, 2013, in the Ninth Circuit. Owing to time constraints, the total number of objector appeals filed in the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not include objector appeals, if any, that may have originated from the Districts of 

Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

30. In the Second Circuit, plaintiffs asked the district court to impose a Rule 7 cost bond in 15 objector appeals that 

were filed in 3 class actions: In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., No. 1:09-md-2023 

(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009) (requesting a $132,500 cost bond collectively for Appeals Nos. 13-1928 and 13-1939); In re Ambac 

Fin. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:08-cv-411 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2008) (requesting a $50,000 cost bond for Appeal No. 11-

4643); and Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:09-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2009) (requesting the 12 appellants to 

collectively post a $200,000 bond for Appeals Nos. 11-3696, 11-3729, 11-3834, 11-3883, 11-4064, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-

3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, and 11-0406). For additional details of findings from the Second Circuit, see Appendix A.

31. See supra note 30. Note that the bond amount used to calculate the average bond amount requested per appeal 

from collective bond requests is the amount found after splitting the overall bond amount requested evenly between the 

number of appeals for which the bond is being requested. 

32. In In re Bayer Corp., No. 1:09-md-2023, Appeals Nos. 13-1928 and 13-1939 were dismissed on the merits before 

the court ruled on the plaintiffs’ bond motion. 

33. Plaintiffs’ cost bond requests were denied in In re Ambac Financial Group, No. 1:08-cv-411, and in Blessing, No. 

1:09-cv-10035.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 15

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 Cost Bond Activity in 

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits29

Circuit Objector Appeals in Which Plaintiffs 

Filed Motion for a Rule 7 Cost Bond

Disposition of Plaintiffs’ 

Rule 7 Bond Requests

Seventh

(27 Total Objector Appeals)

Total Number of Appeals

for Which Plaintiffs Requested Bond: 1934

Average Bond Amount

Requested Per Appeal: $35,36835

Total Number of Bond

Requests Not Ruled On: 636

Total Number of Bond

Requests Denied: 737

Total Number of Bond

Requests Granted: 638

Average Amount of Bond

Imposed Per Appeal: $4,50039

																																																												

34. In the Seventh Circuit, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the district court to order appellants/objectors to post a 

Rule 7 cost bond in 19 objector appeals filed in six separate class actions: In re Discover Payment Protection Plan Mktg. & 

Sales Practices Litig., MDL 2217, No. 10-cv-6994 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2011) (requesting a $25,000 cost bond for Appeal No. 12-

2366); In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Tax Litig., MDL 2147, No. 1:10-cv-02278 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2010) (requesting a $4,500 cost bond each for the 6 appellants in Appeals Nos. 11-2490, 11-2491, 11-2492, 11-2497, 11-2522, and 11-

2588); Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:09-cv-06655 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2009) (requesting a $10,000 bond each for Appeals 

Nos. 11-2922, 11-2964, and 11-2963); Masters v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., No. 09-cv-00255 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2009) (requesting a $5,000 cost bond for Appeal No. 11-2688); Ori v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 2:08-cv-00432 (E.D. Wis. May 16, 2008) 

consol. with Baird v. Fifth Third Bank & Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00929 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2010) (requesting a $25,000 cost 

bond for Appeal No. 12-1288); and In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (No. II), No. 2:08-

md-01999 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2008) (requesting a cost bond of $80,000 each for Appeals Nos. 10-2971, 10-3127, 10-3141, 

10-3146, 10-3157, 10-3158, and 10-3185). For additional details of findings from the Seventh Circuit, see Appendix B.

35. See supra note 34.

36. The objectors/appellants in six appeals filed from the following four class actions voluntarily dismissed their appeals pursuant to Rule 42(b) before the court ruled on the plaintiffs’ bond motion: In re Discover, MDL 2217, No. 10-cv6994; Schultz, No. 1:09-cv-06655; Masters, No. 09-cv-00255; and Ori, No. 2:08-cv-00432.

37. The court denied plaintiffs’ request to impose an $80,000 cost bond per appeal in each of seven appeals filed from 

the settlement in In re Lawnmower, No. 2:08-md-01999.

38. The court granted plaintiffs’ request to order appellants to post a cost bond of $4,500 each in Appeals Nos. 11-

2490, 11-2491, 11-2492, 11-2497, 11-2522, and 11-2588, in In re AT&T, MDL 2147, No. 1:10-cv-02278.

39. The $4,500 average cost bond imposed is a misleading figure since it is derived from only one bond request granted for each of the six appeals filed from in In re AT&T, MDL 2147, No. 1:10-cv-02278.
16 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 Cost Bond Activity in 

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits29

Circuit Objector Appeals in Which Plaintiffs 

Filed Motion for a Rule 7 Cost Bond

Disposition of Plaintiffs’ 

Rule 7 Bond Requests

Ninth

(108 Total Objector Appeals)

Total Number of Appeals

for Which Plaintiffs Requested Bond: 3540

Average Bond Amount

Requested Per Appeal: $63,15841

Total Number of Bond

Requests Not Ruled On: 442

Total Number of Bond

Requests Denied: 243

Total Number of Bond

Requests Granted: 2344

Average Amount of Bond

Imposed Per Appeal: $16,50445

Total Number of Bond

Requests Pending: 646

																																																												

40. In the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the district court to order appellants/objectors to post a 

Rule 7 cost bond in 35 objector appeals filed in 17 separate class actions: Frederick v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., No. 2:09-cv03419 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (requesting a $20,000 cost bond for Appeal No. 11-56609) (court imposed a $1,000 bond); 

In re Wachovia Corp. “Pick-A-Payment” Mortgage Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 5:09-md-02015 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 

2009) (requesting a $116,250 cost bond each for Appeals Nos. 11-16507 and 11-16513) ($15,000 bond required in Appeal 

No. 11-16507; Appeal No. 11-16513 voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b) stipulation of the parties filed 20 days after 

bond request and prior to bond motion decided); Yingling v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:09-cv-01733 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2009) (requesting $5,000 cost bond for Appeal No. 11-16033) (court ordered a $5,000 cost bond); Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. 

5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2009) (requesting a $70,650 bond for Appeal No. 12-15555 and a $346,814.51 bond in 

Appeal No. 12-15633) (court imposed a $70,650 bond each in Appeals Nos. 12-15555 and 12-15633); In re MagSafe Apple 

Power Adapter Litig., No. 5:09-cv-01911 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) (requesting a $200,000 cost bond each for Appeals Nos. 12-

15740, 12-15757, 12-15782, and 12-15816, and a $25,000 bond for Appeal No. 12-16053) (court ordered a $15,000 bond for 

each of the five appeals); Schulken v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 5:09-cv-02708 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (requesting a 

$20,000 appeal bond in Appeal No. 13-15191) (court imposed a $5,000 bond); In re Netflix Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-cv-00379 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (requesting objectors in Appeals Nos. 13-15723, 13-15733, 13-15734, 13-15751, 13-15754, and 13-

15759 to post a $21,519 appeal bond) (motion under submission without oral argument on Aug. 19, 2013); Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00248 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008) (requesting a $64,536.69 appeal bond imposed on 

objectors in Appeals Nos. 12-56957 and 12-56970 jointly and severally) (motion denied as moot since objectors voluntarily 

dismissed their appeals prior to court ruling on bond motion); Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 3:09-cv-01786 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 

2009) (requesting a $3,000 appeal bond imposed on objectors in Appeals Nos. 11-55674 and 11-55706 jointly and severally) 

(court ordered a $3,000 bond imposed on objectors in both appeals jointly and severally); In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., No. 

3:09-cv-02094 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (requesting a $15,000 bond for Appeal No. 13-55373) (court imposed a $15,000 cost 

bond); In re Ferrero Litig., No. 3:11-cv-00205 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011) (requesting a $21,970.12 cost bond imposed jointly and 

severally in Appeals Nos. 12-56469 and 12-56478) (court denied bond requests in for both appeals); Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., 

No. 3:11-cv-02039 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) (requesting court to order objectors in Appeals Nos. 12-57074, 12-57081, and 

12-57184 to post a $235,500.66 appeal bond) (court ordered objectors in the three appeals to collectively post a $5,000 appeal bond); Foos v. Ann, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-02794 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) (requesting a $5,000 bond in Appeal No. 13-55059) 

(court ordered objector to post a $1,000 bond); In re General Motors Corp. Speedometer Prods. Liability Litig., MDL No. 1896, 

No. 2:07-cv-00291 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 23, 2007) (requesting objectors in Appeals No. 08-36005 and 08-36028 to post a 

$40,811.20 cost bond jointly and severally) (court ordered objectors in both appeals jointly and severally responsible to post 

a $1,000 bond); Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-198 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2010) (requesting a $189,344 cost bond in 

Appeal No. 12-35860) (motion not ruled on owing to plaintiffs withdrawing their bond motion when objectors voluntarily 

dismissed their appeal); Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2010) (requesting objectors in 

Appeals Nos. 13-35038 and 13-35491 to post a $41,150 cost bond jointly and severally) (ordered objectors to post a $41,150 

cost bond in each appeal); Herfert v. Crayola, LLC, No. 2:11-cv-01301 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2011) (requesting both objector 

and counsel for objector in Appeal No. 12-35393 to be jointly and severally liable for a $20,000 appeal bond) (ordered objector and her attorney to file an appeal bond of $20,000).
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 17

414243444546The summary in the above table of class plaintiffs’ requests for appellate costs bonds illustrates the current lack of uniformity among district courts (and, along with published cases, 

among circuits) of the factors considered when ruling on requests for Rule 7 bonds and of the 

costs that may be included in the final dollar amount imposed on the appellant, in addition to the 

taxable costs specified by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(c). The frequency with which 

plaintiffs filed a motion requesting imposition of a cost bond varied across the districts: in the 

Seventh Circuit, 70% (19 out of the 27 total objector appeals); in the Second Circuit, 42% (15 out 

of the 36 total objector appeals); and in the Ninth Circuit, 32% (35 out of the 108 objector appeals). 

The disposition of the bond motions also varied across districts. In the Second Circuit, 0% of 

the plaintiffs’ bond requests were granted, 87% (13 of 15) of the requests were denied, and 13% 

(2 of 15) were not ruled on. In the Seventh Circuit, 32% of the bond requests (6 of 19) were 

granted, 37% (7 of 19) were denied, and 36% (6 of 19) were not ruled on. In the Ninth Circuit, 

66% of the class plaintiffs’ bond requests (23 of 35) were granted, 6% (2 of 35) of the requests 

were denied, 11% (4 of 35) were not ruled on, and 17% (6 of 35) were still pending.

As indicated in the notes accompanying the table, bond amounts requested varied considerably both among the districts within the circuits and among the circuits, with the districts in the

Ninth Circuit appearing to have the highest overall average bond amount requested per appeal 

($63,158), compared to the districts in the Seventh Circuit ($35,368) and the Second Circuit 

($25,500). 

Further comparisons of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 cost bond activity between the 

circuits is not useful given the small number of bonds granted in the Seventh Circuit and none 

granted in the Second Circuit during our search period. However, we can make several interesting observations about Rule 7 cost bond activity in the Ninth Circuit given the larger sample size:

• The average amount of a Rule 7 cost bond actually imposed per appeal is much lower 

than the average amount requested by class plaintiffs (e.g., $16,504 average bond imposed 

compared to a $63,158 average bond requested in the Ninth Circuit).

• Although we cannot establish a direct relationship between plaintiffs’ request for, or the 

district court’s imposition of, a Rule 7 cost bond and the final disposition of an objector’s 

appeal, in the Ninth Circuit objectors voluntarily dismissed four appeals in 88 days or less 

following plaintiffs’ motion for a cost bond, even before the court ruled on the motion. In 

																																																												

41. See supra note 40. Note that to calculate the average bond amount requested per appeal, for collective bond requests (or requests to hold two or more objectors jointly and severally liable to post a bond), we used the amount derived 

from dividing the overall bond amount requested by the number of separate appeals the bond could be applied to.

42. See supra note 40. The objectors/appellants in four appeals filed from three class actions voluntarily dismissed 

their appeals pursuant to Rule 42(b) before the court ruled on the plaintiffs’ bond motion. 

43. See supra note 40. Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Rule 7 cost bond for Appeals Nos. 12-56469 and 12-56478 

filed in In re Ferrero Litig., No. 3:11-cv-00205 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011). 

44. See supra note 40. Plaintiffs’ cost bond motions were granted for 23 objector appeals filed in 13 out of the 17 class 

actions in which plaintiffs filed a Rule 7 cost bond request.

45. See supra note 40. Note that the bond amount used to calculate the average bond amount imposed per appeal for 

orders imposing an appeal bond collectively (or orders holding objectors jointly and severally liable to post a bond) is the 

amount found after splitting the overall bond amount ordered evenly between the number of appeals for which the bond is 

being imposed.

46. See supra note 40 for details on In re Netflix Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-cv-00379 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (bond request taken under submission without oral argument on August 23, 2013).
18 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013

addition, the 23 objector appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit for which the district courts 

imposed a Rule 7 cost bond were disposed of as follows: 11 appeals were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b) within an average of 59 days following the courts’ bond 

order (bond was not paid before dismissal in 9 appeals); 2 appeals were dismissed for procedural deficiencies (bond not paid before dismissal for failure to prosecute in both appeals); judgment on the merits was reached in 3 appeals (bond not paid prior to decision 

in 1 appeal); and 7 of these objector appeals are currently still pending (cost bond not 

paid in 2 appeals). Note that in the 12 appeals in which a cost bond was ordered by the 

district court but not paid by the objector prior to final disposition of the appeal, and the 

2 pending objector appeals in which no bond was posted as ordered, failure to post the 

Rule 7 bond did not result in dismissal of the appeal by the Ninth Circuit pursuant to a 

procedural deficiency.

• Although failure to post the Rule 7 cost bond did not result in dismissal by the Ninth Circuit, objectors’ refusal to comply with the district courts’ bond orders initiated an escalating exchange between plaintiffs, objectors, counsel for objectors, and the court, resulting 

in a contempt finding and imposition of the sanction of striking the objectors’ objections 

to the final settlement in 2 appeals and a contempt finding against objectors’ counsel and 

resulting sanction of revoking counsel’s authorization to practice before the district court 

in a third appeal. 47

• The district courts’ cost bond order was appealed by objectors (by amending their notice 

of appeal to include the bond order) in 9 of the 23 appeals ordered to post the bond—5 of 

these appeals remain pending48 (cost bond paid in 3 appeals) and 4 were voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 42(b)49 (bond was paid prior to dismissal in 1 appeal).

																																																												

47. See Appeal No. 12-15555 in Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2009); Appeal No. 

12-15757 in In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litig., No. 5:09-cv-01911 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2009); and Appeal No. 13-

35491 in Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2010). For additional details, see entry for 

above cases and related notes in Appendix C.

48. Appeal Nos. 12-15757 and 12-15782 in In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litig., No. 5:09-cv-01911 (N.D. Cal. 

May 1, 2009); Appeal No. 13-15191 in Schulken v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 5:09-cv-02708 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2009); 

Appeal No. 13-55373 in In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., No. 3:09-cv-02094 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009); and Appeal No. 13-

35491 in Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2010).

49. Appeal No. 11-16033 in Yingling v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:09-cv-01733 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2009); Appeal No. 12-15555 

in Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. 5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2009); Appeal No. 12-35393 in Herfert v. Crayola, 

LLC, No. 2:11-cv-01301 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2011); and Appeal No. 11-56609 in Frederick v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., No. 

2:09-cv-03419 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2009).
Appendices

Appendix A: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of 

Appeals (January 1, 2008 – June 1, 2013)

Appendix B: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals (January 1, 2008 – March 1, 2013)

Appendix C: Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (January 1, 2008 – July 1, 2013)

Appendix A

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

January 1, 2008 – June 1, 2013

FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 23

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

District of Connecticut: 0 objector appeals

Eastern District of New York: 3 objector appeals

In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin 

Products Marketing and Sales Practice 

Litigation, No. 1:09-md-2023 

(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009).

• MDL

• 6 Objections submitted2

• 4/11/2013: Final Order and 

Judgment granting final approval of 

the amended settlement agreement; 

approving the plan for allocation; 

and dismissing all individual and 

class claims in MDL 2023.

3

2 Appeals Filed:

• 5/13/2013: Objector Shelley Stevens

– filed by Thomas L. Cox, Jr./ The 

Cox Firm (Dallas, Texas)

• 5/13/2013: Objector Janis Johnson

– filed by Gary W. Sibley/ The Sibley 

Law Firm (Dallas, Texas)

• 8/6/2013: Appeal No. 13-

1928—dismissed on the 

merits pursuant to court 

order granting appellees’ 

motion to dismiss4

• 8/6/2013: Appeal No. 13-

1939—dismissed on the 

merits pursuant to court 

order granting appellees’ 

motion to dismiss5

• 6/21/2013: Plaintiffs 

filed a motion for 

Objectors Stevens and 

Johnson to file an 

appeal bond in the 

amount of $132,5006

• Appeals dismissed

before Court ruled on 

bond motion

• See above

Anderson v. Nationwide Credit, Inc.,

Nos. 2:10-cv-03825 & 2:08-cv-01016 

(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2010).

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 1 Objection submitted7

• 5/31/2012: Final Order granting 

final approval of the settlement 

agreement and awarding attorneys’ 

fees and costs.8

1 Appeal Filed:

• 6/15/2012: Objectors Farobag Cooper 

& Susan Fox

– filed by Attorney Tiffany N. 

Hardy/Edelman, Combs, Latturner 

& Goodwin, LLC (Chicago, IL)

• 3/7/2013: Appeal No. 12-

2421—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties9

• No motion for cost 

bond

Northern District of New York: 0 objector appeals

Southern District of New York: 33 objector appeals

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. 

Securities Litigation, No. 1:08-cv-411 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2008).

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 3 Objections submitted10

• 9/28/2011: Consent Judgment granting 

final approval of class action settlements 

with (1) Underwriter Defendants and 

(2) Defendant Ambac and the Individual 

Defendants; Order granting request for 

attorneys’ fees and expenses: Order 

approving Plan of Allocation.11

1 Appeal Filed:

• 10/28/2011: Objector Police and Fire 

Retirement System of the City of 

Detroit12

– filed by Attorney Denis F. Sheils/ 

Kohn, Swift & Graf, PC 

(Philadelphia, PA)

• 7/12/2012: Appeal No. 11-

464313—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order14

• 12/15/11: Lead plaintiffs

filed a motion to 

require the objector to 

post an appeal bond for 

$50,000 to cover taxable 

costs15

• 1/12/2012: Court 

denied lead plaintiffs

motion for a FRAP 7 

appeal bond16
24 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Hayes v. Harmony Gold Mining Co. 

Ltd., No. 1:08-cv-3653 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

16, 2008).

• 1 Objection submitted17

• 11/14/2011: Order and Final Judgment 

granting final approval of the class 

action settlement, attorneys’ fees and 

expenses, and dismissing the action 

with prejudice.18

2 Appeals Filed:

• 12/13/2011: Objector James J. Hayes

– filed pro se

– Appeal from order granting 

preliminary approval of settlement 

and order denying Objector’s 

motion to reconsider the final 

approval of the settlement19

• 2/1/2013: Objector James J. Hayes

– filed pro se

– Appeal from the Order issued on 

Jan. 2, 2013, denying Objector 

Hayes’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for reconsideration of the 

Nov. 14, 2011 Order approving the 

Settlement Agreement and Plan of 

Allocation20

• 1/29/2013: Appeal No. 12-

0118—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order21

• 7/18/2013: Appeal No. 13-

0635—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order22

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Chin v. RCN Corp., No. 1:08-cv-7349 

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2008).

• 6 Objections submitted23

• 9/8/2010: Memorandum and Order

granting final approval of the 

settlement agreement; awarding 

attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive 

fee; dismissing all claims with 

prejudice.24

1 Appeal Filed:

• 10/8/2010: Objector Thomas J. 

Lavery

– filed by attorney Brian L. 

Bromberg/ Bromberg Law Office, 

P.C. (New York, NY)

• 3/11/2011: Appeal No. 10-

4057—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties 25

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law 

and Insurance Litigation, Master File 

No. 1:08-cv-11117 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 

2008) for No. 09-md-2052 (S.D.N.Y. 

June 11, 2009).26

• MDL 

• 16 Objections submitted27

• 8/19/2011: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice 

granting final approval of a partial 

settlement of Securities Law, State 

Law and Insurance Actions; 

Judgment and Order granting 

insurance class counsel's motion for 

an award of attorneys' fees and 

expenses and insurance class 

plaintiffs' incentive awards; and 

Judgment And Order granting 

plaintiffs' state and securities law 

settlement class insurance class 

4 Appeals Filed:

29

• 9/16/2011: Objector Orloff Family 

Trust

– filed by attorneys Forrest S. 

Turkish/ Law Offices of Forrest S. 

Turkish (Bayonne, NJ) & Joseph 

D. Palmer/ Law Offices of Darrell 

Palmer PC (Solana Beach, CA)

• 9/16/2011: Objectors Lakeview 

Investment, LP; Phoenix Lake Partners, 

L.P.; 2005 Tomchin Family Charitable 

Trust; Edward White, for himself and 

on behalf of White Trust dated May 3, 

2002; & Rigdon O. Dees, III

– filed by attorney Benjamin 

Rozwood/ Rozwood & Company, 

A.P.C. (Beverly Hills, CA)

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3899—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion30

• 10/24/2012: Appeal No. 11-

4022—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties31

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 25

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

counsels' motion for an award of 

attorneys' fees, reimbursement of 

expenses, and awards to state law 

and securities plaintiffs.28

• 9/19/2011: Objector Philadelphia 

Financial Life Assurance Company

– filed by attorney Richard G. 

Haddad/ Otterbourg, Steindler, 

Houston & Rosen, P.C. (New 

York, New York)

• 9/20/2011: Objectors Madelyn 

Haines & Paul Zamrowski

– filed by attorney Vincent T. 

Gresham/Law Office of Vincent T. 

Gresham (Atlanta, Georgia)

• 4/24/2012: Appeal No. 11-

3923— dismissed for lack of 

standing to maintain the 

appeal32

• Appeal No. 11-4030—

pending33

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 

Master File No. 1:09-cv-00118 

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2009) for No. 09-md2088 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2009).34

• MDL

• 4 Objections submitted to the 

Partial Settlement with Fairfield 

Greenwich Defendants35

• 3/25/2013: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice 

granting final approval of the partial 

class action settlement with Fairfield 

Greenwich Defendants.36

• 3/28/2013: Final Judgment and 

Order Awarding Fees and Expenses 

from the settlement.37

1 Appeal Filed from Partial Settlement 

with Fairfield Greenwich Defendants:38

• 4/23/2013: Objectors Morning Mist 

Holdings Ltd. and Miguel Lomeli39

– filed by attorney Robert A. 

Wallner/Milberg LLP (New York, 

New York)

• Appeal No. 13-1581—

pending40

• No motion for cost 

bond
26 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re Bank of America Corporation 

Securities, Derivative, and Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act 

(ERISA) Litigation, No. 1:09-md-2058 

(S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2009).41

• MDL 

• 4 Objections submitted to the 

proposed settlement of the 

Consolidated Derivative Actions42

• 1/24/2013: Order and Final 

Judgment granting final approval to 

class action settlement of the 

Consolidated Derivative Actions43

• 4/15/2013: Order awarding 

attorneys’ fees and expenses to lead 

counsel and objector’s counsel in the 

Consolidated Derivative Actions; 

denying attorneys’ fee request from 

Objector Pinsly.

44

• 8 Objections submitted to the 

proposed settlement of the 

Consolidated Securities Actions45

• 4/8/2013: Order awarding attorneys’ 

fees and expenses to co-lead counsel 

and awards to lead plaintiffs in the 

Consolidated Securities Actions.46

• 4/9/2013: (1) Judgment granting 

final approval to the Class Action 

Settlement of the Consolidated 

Securities Actions; and (2) Order 

approving Plan of Allocation of the 

Net Settlement Funds.47

5 Total Appeals Filed:

1 Appeal filed from Settlement in 

Consolidated Derivative Actions: 48

• 5/9/2013: Objector Matthew Pinsly

– filed by attorney Christopher L. 

Nelson/Weiser Law Firm, P.C.

4 Appeals Filed from Settlement in 

Consolidated Securities Actions:49

• 4/23/2013: Objectors AMP Capital 

Investors Limited, Colonial First 

State Investments Ltd and H.E.S.T. 

Australia Ltd.

– filed by attorney Hung G. Ta/ 

Hung G.Ta, Esq. PLLC (New York, 

New York)

• 5/7/2013: Objectors Michael and 

Laurel Washenik

– filed by attorney Steve A. Miller/ 

Steve A. Miller, P.C. (Denver, CO)

• 5/8/2013: Objectors Orloff Family 

Trust DTD 10/3/91, Orloff Family 

Trust DTD 12/31/01, & St. Stephen, 

Inc.

– filed by Forrest S. Turkish/ Law 

Office of Forrest S. Turkish 

(Bayonne, NJ)

• 5/8/2013: Objectors Leonard & 

MaryAnn Masiowski, Michael J. & 

Babette Rinis, & Michael J. Rinis IRA 

– filed by N. Albert Bacharach/ N. 

Albert Bacharach, Jr., PA 

(Gainesville, FL)

• 8/9/2013: Appeal No. 13-

1883—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties 50

• Appeal No. 13-1573—

pending

• Appeal No. 13-1798—

pending

• Appeal No. 13-1830—

pending

• Appeal No. 13-1853—

pending

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection 

Television Marketing, Sales Practices 

and Products Liability Litigation, No. 

09-MD-2102 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2009).

• MDL

• 9 Objections submitted51

• 8/24/2010: Opinion and Order 

granting final approval to the 

6 Appeals Filed:53

• 9/21/2010: 13 Objectors (Objecting 

Plaintiffs) joined in 1 appeal54

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith & Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3806—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order55

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 27

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

proposed class action settlement, 

and awarding attorney's fees and 

expenses.52

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/21/2010: Appeal by Objectors 

Meserole, Miller, Monroe, Ploubis, 

Streholski, Seidi, and Mead (the 7 

named Plaintiffs in Meserole v. Sony 

Corp. of Am., No. 08-cv-8987)

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith& Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/21/2010: Appeal by Objector 

Crusinberry (the named Plaintiff in 

Crusinberry v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc.,

09-cv-3461)

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith& Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/21/2010: Appeal by Objector 

Webber (the named Plaintiff in 

Webber v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09-

cv-2557)

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith& Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/21/2010: Appeal by Objectors 

Ouellette, Smith and Beers (the 3 

named Plaintiffs in Ouellette v. Sony 

Corp. of Am., Inc., 09-cv- 1939)

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith& Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3814—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order56

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3824—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order57

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3829—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order58

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3873—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order59

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
28 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/21/2010: Appeal by Objector 

Raymo (the named Plaintiff in 

Raymo v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09-

cv-2820)

– filed by attorneys Sanford P. 

Dumain, Leigh Smith& Jennifer 

Czeisler/ Milberg LLP (New York, 

NY); Attorney Robert I. Lax/ Lax 

LLP (New York, NY); Attorney 

Joseph J.M. Lange & Jeffrey A. 

Koncius/ Lange & Koncius, LLP 

(El Segundo, CA)

• 9/23/2011: Appeal No. 10-

3874—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order60

• No motion for cost 

bond

Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 

1:09-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2009).

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 67 Objections submitted61

• 8/24/2011: Opinion and Order 

granting final approval to the class 

action settlement and awarding 

attorneys’ fees and expenses.62

12 Appeals Filed:

• 9/13/2011: Objectors Ruth Cannata, 

Craig Cantrall, Lee Clanton, Adam 

Falkner, Ben & Kim Frampton, Jill 

Piazza, Marvin Union, and Ken Ward

– filed by attorney Edward F. Siegel/ 

Law Office of Edward F. Siegel 

(Cleveland, Ohio)

• 9/13/2011: Objector Joel Broida

– filed by attorney Stephen B Morris/ 

Morris and Associates (San Diego, 

CA)

• 9/21/2011: Objectors Jason Hawkins, 

Sheila Massie, and John Sullivan

– filed by Robert K. Erlanger/ 

Erlanger Law Firm PLLC (New 

York, New York)

• 9/22/2011: Objector Nicolas Martin

– filed by attorney David Stein/ 

Samuel & Stein (New York, New 

York); and attorney Theodore H. 

Frank/ Center for Class Action 

Fairness LLC (Washington, DC)

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3696—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order63

• 11/30/2011: Appeal No. 11-

3729—dismissed in default 

due to Objector’s failure to file 

required Forms C and D64

• 2/16/2012: Appeal No. 11-

3834—dismissed in default 

due to Objectors failure to file 

a brief and appendix by due 

date65

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3883—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order66

• 10/5/2011: Plaintiffs

filed a motion to require 

the 12 appellants 

collectively to post an 

appeal bond for at least 

$200,000 to cover costs 

and attorneys’ fees on 

appeal75

• 11/22/2011: Court 

denied Plaintiffs’ 

motion for a FRAP 7 

appeal bond76

• See above

• See above

• See above
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 29

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 9/22/2011: Objector Christopher 

Batman

– filed pro se

• 9/23/2011: Objectors Steven 

Crutchfield, Scott D. Krueger, Asset 

Strategies, Inc., Charles B. Zuravin, 

and Jennifer Deachin

– filed by attorney Matthew J. Weiss/ 

Weiss & Associates, P.C.

• 9/23/2011: Objector Randy Lyons

– filed by attorney R. Stephen 

Griffis/ R. Stephen Griffis, PC 

(Hoover, AL)

• 9/23/2011: Objector Tom Carder

– filed by attorney Charles M. 

Thompson, Esq./ Charles M. 

Thompson, PC (Birmingham, AL)

• 9/23/2011: Objector John Ireland

– filed pro se

– 10/4/2011: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 11-3965 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Ireland by Joseph 

Darrell Palmer/ Law Offices of 

Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 9/23/2011: Objectors Michael 

Hartleib and Brian David Goe

– filed pro se

• 9/26/2011: Objector Jeannine Miller

– filed by attorney Steve A. Miller/ 

Steve A. Miller, P.C. (Denver, CO)

• 9/26/2011: Objector Donald K. Nace

– filed pro se

• 2/22/2012: Appeal No. 11-

4064—dismissed in default due 

to Objector’s failure to file a

brief and appendix by due date67

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3908—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order68

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3910—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order69

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3916—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order70

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3965—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order71

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3970—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order72

• 3/13/2013: Appeal No. 11-

3972—judgment of the 

district court affirmed by 

summary order73

• 2/10/2012: Appeal No. 11-

0406—dismissed in default 

due to Objector’s failure to file 

required Form D-P74

• See above

• See above

• See above

• See above

• See above

• See above

• See above

• See above
30 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 20131

36 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“Pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Fishbein v. All Market Inc., No. 1:11-

cv-5580 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011).

• 1 Objection submitted77

• 8/22/2012: Final Order and 

Judgment Approving Class Action 

Settlement and Dismissing Class 

Action with Prejudice78

1 Appeal Filed:

• 9/17/2012: Objector Timothy 

Blanchard

– filed pro se

– on 10/24/2012, Objector Blanchard 

notified the court he retained 

attorney Christopher Bandas/ 

Bandas Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus 

Christi, TX)

• 4/26/2013: Appeal No. 12-

3892—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties79

• No motion for cost 

bond

Western District of New York: 0 objector appeals

District of Vermont: 0 objector appeals

1. Includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or after January 1, 2008, in which 

final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed from between January 1, 2008, through June 1, 2013.

2. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections (Doc. #219) (filed Mar. 1, 2013) (Plaintiffs responded to all six objections, although one pro se

objection was filed after the Feb. 5, 2013 deadline).

3. See Final Order and Judgment (Doc. #234) (filed April 11, 2013). The court’s Final Order and Judgment did not address plaintiffs’ motion 

for attorney fees and expenses. At the April 8, 2013 fairness hearing, the objectors were given the option of supplementing their objection to 

plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and submitting an application to recover attorneys’ fees associated with litigating the objection. Counsel for 

Objector Timmen Cermak (Attorney Charles Chalmers/Allegiance Litigation (Fairfax, CA)) and counsel for Objector Theodore H. Frank (Attorney 

Adam E. Schulman/ Center for Class Action Fairness (Washington, DC)) have filed motions for attorneys’ fees.

4. See Motion Order, Nos. 13-1928(L) & 13-1939(con) (2d Cir. Aug. 6, 2013) (Doc. #74) The Second Circuit granted Appellees’ motion to 

dismiss the Objectors’ appeals deciding that the Objector/Appellants’ challenge to the district court’s approval of the amended settlement agreement 

lacked an arguable basis in fact or law because appellants forfeited their right to seek review of the agreement when they failed to object to the 

amended settlement agreement in the district court. The Court explained that the Appellants’ objections to the original proposed settlement 

agreement were insufficient to preserve their objections, as the original proposed agreement was substantially modified in response to those 

objections, and the district court’s orders made clear that objections to the amended agreement had to be submitted in advance of the fairness 

hearing. In addition, the Second Circuit clarified that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellants’ challenge to the Class’s motion for attorneys’ 

fees, as the district court had not yet ruled on the motion and there was not yet any final order to appeal from.

5. See supra note 4.

6. See Letter Requesting a Pre-Motion Conference (Doc. #242) (filed June 21, 2013). Plaintiffs submitted that the bond should be set at a 

minimum of $132,500.00. This amount included: (1) taxable costs, including but not limited to costs incurred for photocopying, printing, binding, 

filing and service, preparation and transmission of the record and fees for filing the notice of appeal, in the amount of $25,000.00; (2) costs incurred 

as a result of the delay in administration of the class funds in the amount of $57,500.00; and (3) attorneys’ fees in the amount of $50,000.00.

7. See Joint Opposition to Motion to Intervene and Objection Filed by Farobag Cooper and Susan Fox (Doc. #19) (Apr. 13, 2012).

8. See Final Order (Doc. #24) (filed May 31, 2012).

9. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); Motion to Stay Appeal (denied); Motion to Vacate Judgment & Remand Appeal 

(denied); motion to extend time to file opening brief (granted); FRAP 42(b) motion to withdraw appeal with prejudice submitted by all parties.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 31

10. See Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law (Doc. #135) (filed Sept. 12, 2011). Two pro se objectors submitted objections solely to Plaintiffs’ 

request for attorneys’ fees. The third objection was submitted by the lawyers for the Police and Fire Retirement System of Detroit, the plaintiff in 

the stayed state court derivative proceeding, In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 3521 (Del. Ch.), and they objected 

only to the extent that the Ambac bankruptcy estate—which owns the derivative claims as a result of the Ambac bankruptcy filing—had agreed to 

release its claims as part of the Ambac Settlement. The Plaintiffs argued that the objection had previously been ruled on and rejected by the 

Bankruptcy Court. See infra note 13.

11. See Consent Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement with the Underwriter Defendants (Doc. #145) (filed Sept. 28, 2011); Consent 

Judgment approving class action settlement with Ambac and the individual defendants (Doc. #146) (filed Sept. 28, 2011); Order Granting Lead 

Counsel's Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. #144) (filed Sept. 28, 2011); Order Approving Plan of 

Allocation (Doc. #143) (filed Sept. 28, 2011). 

12. The Court granted the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal of Objector-Appellant Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of 

Detroit to the extent that it sought to appeal from the Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement with the Underwriter Defendants because the 

Objector-Appellant waived any argument as to the Underwriters Judgment by failing to object in the district court to the underlying settlement 

agreement. See Motion Order, Nos. 11-4643 Lead, 12-59 Con (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2012) (Doc. #102).

13. The Settlement also required the approval of the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court where Ambac’s Chapter 11 proceeding was pending. In re 

Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc., No. 10-15973 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Nov. 8, 2010). The Objector-Appellant Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of 

Detroit appeared and objected to the Settlement in the Bankruptcy Court, which overruled the objections and entered an order on Sept. 13, 2011, 

approving the Settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The Appellant appealed that order to the District Court which affirmed the 

Bankruptcy Court’s order. In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc., Nos. 10-15973, 11-7529, 2011 WL 6844533 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2011). The Objector-Appellant 

appealed on Jan. 6, 2012 (2d Cir. Appeal No. 11-59). On January 27, 2012 the Second Circuit granted Appellee’s motion to consolidate appeals No. 

11-4643 and No. 11-59, and expedite Lead Appeal No. 11-4643. 

14. In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc., Nos. 11-4643 Lead, 12-59 Con, 2012 WL 2849748 (2d Cir. July 12, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) 

(Judgment Mandate issued Aug. 3, 2012). 

15. See Lead Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #157) (filed Dec. 5, 2011). Plaintiffs contended that a $50,000 bond 

amount was needed for copying costs for briefs and compilation of the substantial appellate record: “the copying costs, alone, taxed at the Second 

Circuit rate of $0.20 per page for commercial reproduction, will likely amount to tens of thousands of dollars given the voluminous filings in 

connection with the approval of the two settlements and the related bankruptcy court records, including two days of evidentiary proceedings.”

16. See In re Ambac Fin. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., Nos. 11-4643 Lead, 12-59 Con, 2012 WL 260231(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2012). Although the Court 

concluded that the Objector/Appellant had the financial ability to pay an appeal bond and that the appeal lacked merit, the court denied Plaintiffs’ 

motion for an appeal bond. The Court found that there was a low risk of nonpayment should the Objector/Appellant lose its appeal and the court 

identified this factor as “perhaps the most important of any under consideration, as the Second Circuit has indicated that protection of an appellee 

from the risk of nonpayment by an unsuccessful appellant is the central purpose behind Rule 7.” Id. at *2. Further, the court pointed out that 

“plaintiffs' concern seems to be that [the Objector’s] appeal was filed not in the hope of succeeding on the merits, but rather with the goal of 

inducing the settling parties to offer compensation to [the Objector] such that [the Objector] would drop its objections and allow the distribution 

of the settlement. In our view, if this concern is justified and the appeal is indeed frivolous, the appropriate remedy is an award of damages under 

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and not an appeal bond under Rule 7.” Id.

17. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. #85) (filed Nov. 1, 2011). Two additional 

objections were submitted but dismissed as invalid because the objectors were not class members with standing to object. The sole objector James 

Hayes was also the Class Representative. On August 17, 2011, Class Representative Hayes appealed from the Order preliminarily approving the 

settlement entered on August 2, 2011, and the Order declining reconsideration of the August 2, 2011 order, which was entered on August 10, 2011. 

See Notice of Appeal (Doc. #79) (filed Aug. 19, 2011). On October 28, 2011, Appeal No. 11-3609 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because a final 

order had not been issued by the district court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. (Doc. #82) (filed Oct. 28, 2011).

18. See Order and Final Judgment approving settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice (Doc. #88) (filed Nov. 14, 2011).

19. See Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice of Settlement (Doc. #74)(filed Aug. 2, 2011); and Hayes v. Harmony 

Gold Min. Co. Ltd., No. 08-cv-03653, 2011 WL 6019219 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2011) (denial of Objector’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

Nov. 14, 2011 Order and Final Judgment granting final approval of the class action settlement and awarding attorneys’ fees).

20. See Order (denying Class Representative James J. Hayes' motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 seeking reconsideration of 

the Court's November 14, 2011, approval of the Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation and requesting an order requiring the Claims 

Administrator to file a summary report on all claims submitted against the Settlement Fund) (Doc. #105) (filed Jan. 2, 2013).

21. Hayes v. Harmony Gold Min. Co. Ltd., No. 12-118, 2013 WL 322921 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2013) (Summary Order and Judgment) (Judgment 

Mandate issued April 2, 2013). Appellant-Objector James Hayes filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. 

After the court denied the motion by Order dated March 26, 2013, Appellant-Objector Hayes submitted an application for an extension of time 

within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to Justice Ginsburg. By letter dated June 20, 2013, Justice Ginsberg extended the time to and 
32 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

including July 29, 2013. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by James Hayes on July 27, 2013 and placed on the docket August 1, 2013 as 

No. 13-143. See U.S. Supreme Court Notice of Writ of Certiorari filing, No. 12-0118, (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) (Doc. #156).

22. See Motion Order, No. 13-635 (2d Cir. July 18, 2013) (Doc. #107). The Court construed the appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeal as 

motions for summary affirmance, and, as construed, the appellees’ motions were granted. And although Appellees’ motion for monetary sanctions 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 was denied absent a showing of bad faith, the Court warned Objector/Appellant Hayes that the 

“continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or clearly meritless appeals, motions, or other papers regarding appeals of class action securities fraud 

claims in the Harmony Gold litigation will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include a leave-to-file sanction requiring Appellant to 

obtain permission from this Court prior to filing any further submissions in this Court.”

23. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #46) (filed May 28, 2010).

24. See Chin v. RCN Corp., No. 08-cv-7349, 2010 WL 3958794 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 08, 2010).

25. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); FRAP 42 stipulation with prejudice to withdraw appeal signed by counsel for all 

parties. Note that Appellant Lavery’s brief and appendix were due on Feb. 21, 2011; the court issued an order on Feb. 25, 2011 holding Appellant in 

default and informing that the appeal would be dismissed if appellant’s brief and appendix were not filed by March 11, 2011. Appellant’s Rule 42 

stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed on March 9, 2011. 

26. When the transfer order was issued on June 11, 2009, creating 09-md-2052 in the Southern District of New York, the Court’s consolidation 

Order and Memorandum issued on March 26, 2009 remained in place establishing 08-cv-11117 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2008) as the master docket for 

three groupings of consolidated cases: Securities Law Actions, 08-cv-11212; State Law Actions, 08-cv-11183; and Insurance Actions, 09-cv-557. 

27. Class counsel prepared a Chart of Objections listing 16 separate Objector Groups (comprised of 48 individual objectors) and indicating 

that six of these Groups withdrew their objections prior to final approval of the settlement. See Exhibit B attached to Plaintiffs’ Response (Doc. # 

597-2 in 08-cv-11117) (filed Aug. 9, 2011). 

28. See Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with prejudice regarding settlement and Rules 23 and 23.1 (Doc. #604) (filed Aug. 19, 2011); 

Judgment and Order granting insurance class counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and insurance class plaintiffs’ incentive 

awards (Doc. #602) (filed Aug. 19, 2011); Judgment and Order granting plaintiffs' state and securities law settlement class insurance class counsels’

motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and awards to state law and securities plaintiffs (Doc. #203) (filed Aug. 19, 

2011). Litigation continues in 09-md-2052 as to non-settling defendants.

29. An additional appeal was filed by lead plaintiffs in the Securities Law Actions appealing on behalf of all class members from the Order 

entering final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) dismissing the securities law claims against Defendants KPMG and Ernst & Young. See Notice of 

Appeal (Doc. # 610 in 08-cv-11117) (filed Sept. 12, 2011). The judgment of the district court dismissing appellants federal securities law claims and 

common law claims against Defendants KPMG and Ernst & Young was affirmed. See Meridian Horizon Fund, LP v. KPMG, Nos. 11-cv-3725, 11-cv3311, 2012 WL 2754933 (2d Cir. July 10, 2012) (Summary Order).

30. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); Opposition to motions to dismiss; motion to file late; appellant brief; FRAP 42 

motion to voluntary dismissal of appeal with prejudice. Note that on April 24, 2012, the court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss 

Objector/Appellant Orloff’s appeal from the Aug. 19, 2011 Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the partial settlement 

(Doc. #604), but denied the dismissal of Orloff’s appeal from the Orders granting plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and expenses (Docs. #602, 

603). See Order, No. 11-cv-3899 (2d Cir. April 24, 2012) (Doc. #301).

31. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); motion for leave to respond; motion to file late and to file oversized brief; FRAP 

42(b) stipulation with prejudice to withdraw appeal signed by counsel for all parties.

32. The court granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss Objector/Appellant Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company’s appeal for lack of 

standing to maintain the appeal agreeing with the Appellees that neither the Objector Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company nor its 

policyholders were members of the Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement. See Order, No. 11-cv-3923 (2d Cir. April 24, 2012) 

(Doc. #63).

33. Oral argument in Lakeview Invs., LP v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins., Appeal No. 11-4030 was heard on June 24, 2013. Decision pending.

34. Pursuant to the transfer order issued on October 6, 2009 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation creating 09-md-2088 in the 

S.D.N.Y., transferred cases are to be consolidated with lead case No. 09-cv-0118 for all pretrial purposes. All filings in connection with any 

consolidated actions are to be filed in the lower numbered lead case 09-cv-0118, and the higher numbered case will be closed and removed from the 

court’s database. See Order (Doc. #282) (filed Oct. 14, 2009). On June 1, 2012, the court granted final approval to a settlement between the settling 

class and Defendants EFG Capital International Corp. No objectors appealed the partial settlement. See Order and Final Judgment (Doc. #890) (filed 

June 1, 2012). The March 25, 2013 settlement from which Objectors appealed addressed Plaintiffs’ claims against Fairfield Greenwich Limited entity 

and individual defendants as defined in the court’s Final Judgment. Plaintiffs’ claims against the PricewaterhouseCoopers Defendants, the Citco 

Defendants, and GlobeOp Financial Services LLC are not resolved by this Settlement and continue to be prosecuted.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 33

35. See Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #1073) (filed Mar. 8, 2013).

36. See Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice Settling Action (Doc. #1097) (filed Mar. 25, 2013).

37. See Final Judgment and Order Awarding Fees and Expenses from the Settlement (Doc. #1099) (filed Mar. 28, 2013).

38. Two additional appeals were taken from the March 25, 2013 Final Judgment approving the settlement: (i) Appeal by Irving Picard, 

Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (No. 13-1392); (ii) Appeal by the Non-Settling Defendants 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Citco (No. 13-1642).

39. Appealing Objectors were shareholders of Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (a fund sponsored by Defendants Fairfield Greenwich Group) and

Objectors were plaintiffs in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Fairfield Greenwich Group, a derivative action pending on behalf of Fairfield Sentry Ltd. 

that was filed in May 2009 in New York Supreme Court and then removed to the S.D.N.Y. The Court granted the Plaintiffs/Objectors’ motion to 

remand finding that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. See Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 676 F. Supp. 2d 285, 295, 301 

(S.D.N.Y. 2009). On July 22, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court stayed the derivative claims, and the District Court and then the Court of Appeals 

affirmed. See In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd, 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, No. 10-7311, 2011 WL 4357421 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011), affirmed, 

714 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. April 16, 2013). In their objection, the Objectors/Derivative Plaintiffs sought to change the Settlement terms so that the 

release and bar order provisions in the Final Judgment did not preclude them from both recovering in the Settlement and pursuing the Morning 

Mist derivative action, which they brought against many of the same defendants arising out of the same facts and circumstances. If those changes 

were not made, they argued that the Settlement should not be approved. The Release would, if approved by the Court, prevent Settlement Class 

Members from prosecuting derivative claims on behalf of the Sentry Fund against Released Parties, including the Fairfield Greenwich Defendants.

40. On May 16, 2013, Appellees motion to expedite Appeal No. 13-1581 was granted. 

41. The securities, derivative, and ERISA actions were separately consolidated into Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 and ordered to coordinate 

for pretrial purposes. MDL 2058 remains open pending settlement in the consolidated ERISA Action.

42. See Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for Final Approval of Derivative Action Settlement (Doc. #782) 

(filed Dec. 28, 2012).

43. See Order and Final Judgment settling Consolidated Derivative Action (Doc. #805) (filed Jan. 24, 2013).

44. See Order on Motions for Awards of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. #873) (filed April 15, 2013) (Order awarding 

attorneys’ fees and expenses to lead counsel in the consolidated derivative action and to counsel for Nancy Rothbaum, a former objector to the 

proposed settlement of the consolidated derivative action and the lead plaintiff in In re Bank of Am. Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litig., No. 4307-CS 

(Del. Ch.); denying fee request from counsel for Mathew Pinsly, another former objector to the proposed settlement and the lead plaintiff in Pinsly 

v. Holliday, No. 12-cv-04778 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2012). 

45. See Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Approve Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation (Doc. #852) (filed 

Mar. 29, 2013). 

46. See Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees And Expenses (Doc. #862) (filed Apr. 8, 2013). See also In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, 

Derivative, and Employee Retirement Income Sec. Act (Erisa) Litig., No. 09-md-2058, 2013 WL 1558686 (S.D.N.Y. April 11, 2013) (granting fee 

request to lead counsel in Consolidated Securities actions; further explanation of April 8, 2013 decision to deny fee request to law firm of Flanagan, 

Lieberman, Hoffman and Swaim).

47. See Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement (settling Consolidated Securities Actions) (Doc. #871) (filed Apr. 9, 2013); and Order 

Approving Plan of Allocation of Net Settlement Fund (Doc. #868) (filed Apr. 9, 2013).

48. The consolidated Derivative Action was settled on Jan. 24, 2013, and no objectors appealed from the order granting final approval of the 

settlement. Counsel for Objector Pinsly appealed from the April 15, 2013 Order denying his motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses. See supra note

44. 

49. An additional appeal was filed by Plaintiff Charles Dornfest from the April 9, 2013 Judgment approving the Consolidated Securities 

Action insofar as the Judgment dismissed his complaint, and from the Sept. 29, 2011 Order denying Plaintiff Dornfest the right to move to certify a 

class of Bank of America option investors. See Notice of Appeal (Doc. #890) (filed Apr. 25, 2013) and Memorandum and Order (Doc. #468) (filed 

Sept. 29, 2011). Appeal No. 13-1677 remains pending.

50. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); FRAP 42(b) stipulation with prejudice to withdraw appeal signed by counsel for all 

parties.

51. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Response to Opposition to Proposed Class 

Action Settlement and Request for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #102)(filed Aug. 3, 2010). Eight of the 9 objections were submitted by 8 individual pro se

objectors, and the final objection was filed by counsel on behalf of 13 objectors (“13 Objecting Plaintiffs”). The 13 Objecting Plaintiffs were the 

named plaintiffs in 5 class actions against Sony Corp. pending in the S.D.N.Y. that were all filed by attorneys for Milberg LLP, Lax LLP, and Lange & 

Koncius, LLP. Meserole v. Sony Corp. of Am., 08 Civ. 8987 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2008), Ouellette v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09 Civ. 1939 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 

3, 2009), Webber v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09 Civ. 2557 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009), Raymo v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09 Civ. 2820 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 

2009), and Crusinberry v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 09 Civ. 3461 (S.D.N.Y. Apr., 2009). On October 9, 2009, the JPMDL consolidated these 5 class 
34 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A

actions with Minton v. Sony Electronics, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 8651 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2009) originally filed in the E.D.N.Y. on March 6, 2009, and 

Cardenas v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 8652 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2009), originally filed in the E.D. Tex. on June 18, 2009, transferring 

them to the S.D.N.Y. into MDL 2102. In November 2009, Plaintiff Cardenas and Defendants reached a class action settlement and the court granted 

preliminary approval of the settlement in May 2010. In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection Television Mktg., Sales Practices & Products Liab. Litig., 

09 MD 2102, 2010 WL 1993817 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2010).

52. See In re Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection Television Mktg., Sales Practices and Products Liab. Litig., No. 09-MD-2102, 2010 WL 3422722 

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010).

53. Two additional appeals were filed by individual Attorneys Sanford P. Dumain, Leigh Smith, Jennifer Czeisler, Robert I. Lax, Joseph J.M. 

Lange and Jeffrey A. Koncius (Appeal No. 10-3888 filed on 9/24/2011) and their respective law firms Milberg LLP, Lax LLP, and Lange & Koncius, 

LLP (Appeal No. 10-3871 filed on 9/22/2011) whom represented plaintiffs in all 5 of the original class actions filed in the S.D.N.Y. These attorneys 

and their respective firms were appealing from the district court’s July 22, 2010 Order imposing Rule 11 sanctions against counsel for making 

“objectively unreasonable representations in pleadings submitted to the Court, orally in presentations to the Court, and in motion papers without 

making a sufficient or appropriate investigation as to the truth of such statements.” See Opinion and Order (Doc. #94) (filed July 22, 2010). 

Although the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the class action settlement of the consolidated cases, the July 22, 2010 Order 

imposing Rule 11 sanctions against appellant attorneys and their firms was vacated. In re Sony Corp. SXRD, Nos. 10-3806-CV L, 10-3829-CV CON, 

10-3874-CV CON, 10-3814-CV CON, 10-3871-CV CON, 10-3888-CV, 10-3824-CV CON, 10-3873-CV CON, 2011 WL 4425361 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 

2011) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued October 14, 2011).

54. See supra note 51.

55. In re Sony Corp. SXRD, Nos. 10-3806-CV L, 10-3829-CV CON, 10-3874-CV CON, 10-3814-CV CON, 10-3871-CV CON, 10-3888-CV, 

10-3824-CV CON, 10-3873-CV CON, 2011 WL 4425361 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 2011) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued 

October 14, 2011). 

56. Id.

57. Id.

58. Id.

59. Id.

60. Id.

61. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law In Response to Objections to Motions for Final Approval of Settlement and for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees 

and Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. #149) (filed Aug. 3, 2011) (The 67 objections were submitted by total of 85 objectors with 10 Objections filed

by objector’s attorney and 57 filed pro se).

62. See Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 09 CV 10035, 2011 WL 3739024 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2011). See also Final Order and Judgment 

(Doc. #162) (filed Aug. 25, 2011) & Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (Doc. #163) (filed Aug. 25, 2011).

63. Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 11-3696, 11-3883, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, 2012 WL 6684572 (2d 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued March 13, 2013).

64. Appellant Broida’s Forms C and D were due on September 27, 2011. The court informed Appellant Broida that the appeal would be

dismissed effective October 18, 2011, if Forms C and D were not filed by that date. See Order, No. 11-3729 (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2011)(Doc. #11). 

Appellant Broida’s motion to reinstate his appeal was denied. See Motion Order, No. 11-3729 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2011)(Doc. #57).

65. Appellants’ brief and appendix were due on January 3, 2012. The court informed Appellants that the appeal would be dismissed effective 

January 20, 2012 if the brief and appendix were not filed by that date. See Amended Order, No. 11-3834 (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2012)(Doc. #65). The 

Appellants did not file. The mandate issued on Feb. 16, 2012 dismissing Appeal No. 11-3834. See Order disposing of appeal, No. 11-3834 (2d Cir. 

Feb. 16, 2012)(Doc. #75).

66. Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 11-3696, 11-3883, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, 2012 WL 6684572 (2d 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued March 13, 2013). Appellant-Objector Nicholas Martin filed a 

petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. After the court denied the motion by Order dated March 3, 2013, 

Appellant-Objector Martin submitted an application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to Justice 

Ginsburg. See Order, No. 11-3883 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2013) (Doc. #175). By letter dated May 23, 2013, Justice Ginsberg extended the time to and 

including August 2, 2013. A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on August 2, 2013 and placed on the Supreme Court docket August 6, 2013 as 

No. 13-169. See U.S. Supreme Court Notice of writ of certiorari filing, No. 11-3883 (2d Cir. Aug. 6, 2013) (Doc. #182).

67. Appellant Batman’s brief and appendix were due on December 30, 2011. The court informed Appellant that the appeal would be 

dismissed effective January 24, 2012 if the brief and appendix were not filed by that date. See Order, No. 11-4064 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (Doc. #56). 

Appellant Batman did not file. The mandate issued on Feb. 22, 2012 dismissing Appeal No. 11-4064. See Order disposing of appeal, No. 11-4064 (2d 

Cir. Feb. 22, 2012) (Doc. #71).

68. Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 11-3696, 11-3883, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, 2012 WL 6684572 (2d 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued March 13, 2013). Appellants-Objectors in Appeal No. 11-3908 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix A 35

filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. The court denied the motion by Order dated March 3, 2013. See 

Order, No. 11-3908 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2013) (Doc. #173).

69. Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 11-3696, 11-3883, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, 2012 WL 6684572 (2d 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued March 13, 2013). 

70. Id.

71. Id.

72. Id.

73. Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 11-3696, 11-3883, 11-3908, 11-3910, 11-3916, 11-3965, 11-3970, 11-3972, 2012 WL 6684572 (2d 

Cir. Dec. 20, 2012) (Summary Order and Judgment) (judgment mandate issued March 13, 2013). Appellant-Objector in Appeal No. 11-3972 filed a 

petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. The court denied the motion by Order dated March 3, 2013. See Order, No. 

11-3972 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2013) (Doc. #161).

74. The court informed Appellant Nace that his appeal will be dismissed effective December 30, 2011, if Form D-P was not filed by that date. 

See Order, No. 11-4061 (2d Cir. Nov. 21, 2011) (Doc. #37). Appellant Batman did not file. The mandate issued on Feb. 22, 2012 dismissing Appeal

No. 11-4064. See Order disposing of appeal, No. 11-4061 (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2012) (Doc. #47).

75. See Memorandum of Law in Support Motion to Require Appellants to Post an Appeal Bond (Doc. #183) (filed Oct. 5, 2011). Plaintiffs 

asserted that although they were indifferent as to how Appellants chose to allocate among themselves the cost of the bond, because Plaintiffs’ 

expenses and attorneys’ fees on the appeal would not be materially reduced even if one or several of the 12 Appellants dropped out of the appeal, it 

was important for the full $200,000 bond to be posted regardless of how many of the Appellants remained in the appeal or participated in paying for 

the bond.

76. See Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 09 CV 10035, 2011 WL 5873383 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011). The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ 

request for a $200,000 appeal bond concluding that although it was unlikely that the Objectors would succeed in their appeals, Plaintiffs had failed 

to demonstrate either that there was a significant risk of nonpayment or that the Objectors had engaged in bad faith or vexatious conduct.

77. See Reply Memorandum Of Law in Support of Motion for Settlement (Doc. #46) (filed Aug. 13, 2012).

78. See Final Order and Judgment approving class action settlement and dismissing class action with prejudice (Doc. #52) (filed Aug. 22, 

2012); Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards (Doc. #51) (filed Aug. 22, 2012).

79. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Forms C 

(Pre-Argument Statement) & D (Transcript Information Form); motion to extend time; FRAP 42 stipulation with prejudice to withdraw appeal 

signed by counsel for all parties.

Appendix B

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

January 1, 2008 – March 1, 2013

FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 39

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Central District of Illinois: 0 objector appeals

Northern District of Illinois: 17 objector appeals

In re: Discover Payment Protection Plan 

Marketing and Sales Practices 

Litigation, MDL 2217, No. 10-cv-6994 

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2011)

• MDL

• 6 Objections Submitted81

• 5/10/2012: Final Order and 

Judgment granting final approval to 

the class action settlement; Order 

awarding attorneys’ fees, 

reimbursement of expenses, and 

service award82

1 Appeal Filed:

• 6/7/2012: Objector Aaron Petrus 

– filed pro se

– 6/15/2012: disclosure statement in 

Appeal No. 12-2366 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Petrus by Christopher 

Andreas Bandas/ Bandas Law 

Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 7/6/2012: Appeal No. 12-

2366—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion83

• 6/28/2012: Plaintiffs’ 

motioned for objector 

Petrus to post appellate 

cost bond of $25,00084

• Appeal dismissed before 

motion for bond ruled 

on

In re: AT&T Mobility Wireless Data 

Services Tax Litigation, MDL 2147, No. 

1:10-cv-02278 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2010)

• MDL

• 10 Objections Submitted85

• 6/2/2011: Memorandum Opinion 

and Order (1) granting final 

approval of the class action 

settlement; and (2) grants in part 

and denies in part Class Counsel's 

motion for approval of attorneys' 

fees, costs, and expenses, and for 

approval of incentive awards for 

Class Representatives86

6 Appeals Filed:

• 6/30/2011: Objectors Angela Vrana & 

Barbara Fisher 

– filed by Attorney Bonner C. 

Walsh/Walsh, PLLC (Athens, TX)

• 7/1/2011: Objector Karen Wiand 

– filed by Attorney Mark S. 

Baumkel/ Mark S. Baumkel &

Associates (Bingham Farms, MI)

• 7/1/2011: Objectors Travis Cox, 

Shelly Stevens & Margaret Johnson 

– filed by Attorney Thomas L. 

Cox/The Cox Firm (Dallas, TX)

• 7/1/2011: Objector Paige Nash

– filed by Gary W. Sibley/Sibley Firm 

(Dallas, TX)

• 7/22/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2490—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties87

• 7/7/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2491—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties88

• 11/28/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2492—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion89

• 12/6/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2497—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion90

• 7/22/2011: Class 

representatives 

motioned court to order 

all six appellants to post 

appellate cost bond of 

$4,500 each93

•

• 7/28/2011: Court 

orderedObjectors to 

post a bond of $4,500 

each by 8/11/201194

• See above. Appeal No. 

11-2491 dismissed prior 

to bond order

• See above

• See above
40 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 7/5/2011: Objector Margaret 

Strohlein 

– filed pro se;

– 10/11/2011: disclosure statement in 

Appeal No. 11-2522 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Strohlein by Joseph 

Darrell Palmer/Law Office of Darrell 

Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 7/12/2011: Objectors Mike Hale, 

Summer Hogan, Michael Schulz & 

Omar Rivero 

– filed by Christopher A. 

Bandas/Bandas Law Firm (Corpus 

Christi, TX) & Peter Higgins 

(Chicago, IL—local counsel)

• 12/6/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2522—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion91

• 12/6/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2588—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion92

• See above

• See above

In re: Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon 

Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 

MDL 2103, No. 1:09-cv-07670 (N.D. 

Ill. Dec. 4, 2009)

• MDL

• 1 Objection Submitted95

• 11/30/2011: Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement granting (1) final 

approval of class action certification 

and settlement; (2) approval of 

attorneys’ fees and incentive award; 

and overruling objector Jill K. 

Cannata's objections96

1 Appeal Filed:

• 12/8/2011: Objector Jill K. Cannata 

– filed by Attorney Sam P. Cannata /

Cannata Phillips LPA, LLC 

(Cleveland, OH)

• 2/1/2012: Appeal No. 11-

3745—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion97

• No request for cost 

bond

Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:09-

cv-06655 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action98

• 13 Objections Submitted99

• 7/29/2011: Memorandum Opinion 

and Order and Judgment granting 

final approval of the class action 

settlement, Class Counsels’ request 

for attorneys fees; denying Class 

Counsels request for cost and 

expense reimbursement without 

prejudice; and approving an 

incentive award for the Class 

Representatives100

3 Appeals Filed:

• 8/19/2011: Objectors Michelle 

Keyes,101 Amanda Ratliff, Verdel 

Ratliff 

– filed by local counsel Timothy P. 

Mahoney/ Hagens Berman Sobol 

Shapiro LLP (Oak Park, IL); and

– filed by attorneys that were members 

of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in 

In re Checking Account Overdraft 

Litigation, 09-md-2036 (S.D. Fla. 

June 10, 2009)102

• 8/19/11: Appeal by Northcoast 

Mattress & Recycling, LLC (Ohio 

limited liability company and class 

member)

– filed by Attorney Sam P. Cannata / 

Cannata Phillips LPA, LLC 

• 9/28/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2922—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion104

• 9/27/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2964—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion 105

• 9/20/2011: Class 

representatives 

motioned court to order 

appellants to post 

appellate cost bond of 

$10,000 each107

• Appeals dismissed 

before motion for bond 

ruled on

• See above
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 41

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

(Cleveland, OH) (Note: The 

original objection from which this 

appeal was taken was submitted by 

Sam P. Cannata filing pro se as a 

class member and mailing his 

objection to class counsel) 

• 8/25/2011: Objector Laura K. 

Kannapel103

– filed by Scott D. Gilchrist/ Cohen 

& Malad, LLP (Indianapolis, IN)

• 9/27/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2963—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion106

• See above

National Council on Compensation 

Insurance, Inc. v. American 

International Group, No. 1:07-cv-2898 

(N.D. Ill. filed May 24, 2007) & Safeco 

Insurance Company of America et al. v. 

American International Group, Inc., 

No. 1:09-cv-2026 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr.

1, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action108

• 3 Objections Submitted109

• 12/21/2011: Order granting final 

approval of settlement, but staying 

the ruling pending a forthcoming 

opinion. The court granted 

settlement class plaintiffs' first, 

second and third interim fee 

petitions; petition for incentive fee 

awards to each of the seven 

Settlement Class Plaintiffs; Objector 

Liberty Mutual's fee petition was 

granted in part. Objectors Safeco 

and Ohio's fee petition was granted 

in part.110

• 2/28/2012: Memorandum Opinion 

and Order and Final Judgment 

approving the settlement agreement; 

granting Safeco & Ohio Casualty's 

motion for reimbursement of 

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses; 

granting Liberty’s motion for 

reimbursement of fees and costs in 

part111

6 Appeals Filed:112

• 1/19/2012: Objectors Safeco Ins. Co. 

of America and Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. 

– appeal of Dec. 21, 2011 Order

entered in 09-2026

– filed by Michael A. Walsh/ Nutter, 

McClennen & Fish, LLP (Boston, 

MA) & Gary Elden, Gary Miller, 

Matthew Sitzer, Daniel Hinkle; 

Grippo & Elden, LLC (Chicago, IL)

• 1/19/2012: Objector Liberty Mutual 

Ins. Co.

– appeal of Dec. 21, 2011 Order

entered in 09-2026

– filed by James A. Morsch/Butler 

Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP 

(Chicago, IL) 

• 1/23/2012: Objector Liberty Mutual 

Ins. Co.

– appeal of Dec. 21, 2011 Order 

entered in 07-2898

– filed by James A. Morsch/Butler 

Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP 

(Chicago, IL) 

• 3/27/2012: Objectors Safeco Ins. Co. 

of America and Ohio Casualty Ins. 

Co. 

– appeal of Feb. 28, 2012 Opinion 

and Order & Final Judgment 

entered in 09-2026

– filed by Michael A. Walsh/ Nutter, 

McClennen & Fish, LLP (Boston, 

MA) & Gary Elden, Gary Miller, 

Matthew Sitzer, Daniel Hinkle; 

Grippo & Elden, LLC (Chicago, 

IL)

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1158—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)113

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1157—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)114

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1187—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)115

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1730—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)116

• No request for cost 

bond

• No request for cost 

bond

• No request for cost 

bond

• No request for cost 

bond
42 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 3/27/2012: Objector Liberty Mutual 

Ins. Co.

– appeal of Feb. 28, 2012 Opinion 

and Order & Final Judgment 

entered in 07-2898

– filed by James A. Morsch/Butler 

Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP 

(Chicago, IL) 

• 3/27/2012: Objector Liberty Mutual 

Ins. Co.

– appeal of Feb. 28, 2012 Opinion 

and Order & Final Judgment 

entered in 09-2026

– filed by James A. Morsch/Butler 

Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP 

(Chicago, IL) 

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1753—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)117

• 3/25/2013: Appeal No. 12-

1764—dismissed per 

published opinion granting 

parties stipulation to 

voluntarily dismiss with 

prejudice pursuant to FRAP 

42(b)118

• No request for cost 

bond

• No request for cost 

bond

Southern District of Illinois: 1 objector appeal

Masters v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.,

No. 09-cv-00255 (S.D. Ill. April 9, 

2009)

• 5 Objections Submitted119

• 7/14/2011: Order of Final Approval 

granting final approval of class 

action settlement, and granting 

motion for Attorney Fees and 

Expenses and Incentive Award to 

Class Representative120

1 Appeal Filed:

• 7/25/2011: Objector Grace M. 

Cannata

– filed by Attorney Sam P. Cannata/ 

Cannata Phillips LPA, LLC 

(Cleveland, Ohio)

• 12/8/2011: Appeal No. 11-

2688 voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion121

• 8/30/2011: Plaintiff 

motioned for Objector 

Cannata to post 

appellate cost bond of 

$5,000122

• Appeal No. 11-2688 

dismissed before 

motion for bond ruled 

on

Northern District of Indiana: 0 objector appeals

Southern District of Indiana: 0 objector appeals
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 43

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Eastern District of Wisconsin: 9 objector appeals

Ori v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 2:08-cv00432 (E.D. Wis. May 16, 2008) 

consolidated with Baird v. Fifth Third 

Bank and Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:10-cv00929 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2010)

• Consolidated class action 

• 1 Objection Submitted123

• 1/10/2012: Decision and Order and

Order of Judgment (1) granting final 

approval to the class action settlement; 

(2) granting Settlement Class Counsels’ 

request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

expenses, and the incentive award for 

Representative Plaintiff; (3) responding 

to and overruling Objector Gatto’s 

objections; and (4) denying plaintiffs 

request that the court find that Michael 

Gattos’ objection was frivolous and 

made in bad faith.124

1 Appeal Filed:

• 2/8/2012: Objector Michael Gatto 

– filed by attorney Sam P. Cannata/ 

Cannata Phillips LPA, LLC 

(Cleveland, Ohio)

• 2/27/2012: Appeal No. 12-

1288—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion125

• 2/20/2012: Plaintiff 

motioned for objector 

Cannata to post

appellate cost bond of 

$25,000126

• Motion denied as moot 

because the appeal was 

dismissed before 

motion for bond was 

ruled on

In re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower 

Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation 

(No. II), No. 2:08-md-01999 (E.D. 

Wis. Dec. 5, 2008)

• MDL

• 68 Objections Submitted127

• 8/16/2010: Decision and Order 

granting final approval for five 

separate class action Settlement 

Agreements reached with five 

separate groups of Defendants; and 

granting attorneys' fees, litigation 

expenses, and class-representative 

service awards128

8 Appeals Filed:129

• 8/23/2010: Objectors Rosalie 

Borgarts, Paul Palmer, Irving S. 

Bergrin, Cory A. Buye, Jill Cannata, 

Robert Falkner and Thomas Basie

– notice of appeal filed by Edward F. 

Siegel (Cleveland, OH); Darrell 

Palmer/ Law Offices of Darrell 

Palmer (Solana Beach, CA); 

Kenneth E. Nelson/ Nelson Law 

Firm P.C. (Kansas City, MO); 

Edward W. Cochran (Shaker 

Heights, Ohio); Sam P. Cannata 

(Garfield Hts., Ohio)

– Disclosure statement filed by Atty.

Edward W. Cochran for Objectors/

Appellants in appeal # 10-2971

• 9/10/2010: Objector Carl Olson 

– filed by John J. Pentz /Class Action 

Fairness Group (Maynard, MA) 

• 2/16/2011: Appeal #10-2971—

voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion131

• 2/16/2011: Appeal #10-3127—

voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion132

• 8/31/2010: Plaintiff 

motioned for ObjectorAppellants in Appeal 

#10-2971 to post

appellate cost bond of 

$80,000139

• 11/2/2010: Court 

denied class 

representatives’ motion 

for an appeal bond140

• 9/14/2010: Plaintiff 

motioned for ObjectorOlson to post an

appellate cost bond of 

$80,000141

• 11/2/2010: Court denied

class representatives’ 

motion for an appeal 

bond142
44 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 201380

27 Total Objector Appeals

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 9/14/2010: Objectors Karen Chandler 

& Thomas L. Cox, Jr

– notice of appeal filed by Joshua B. 

Kons /Law Offices of Joshua B. 

Kons LLC (Whitefish Bay, WI )

– 10/25/2010: disclosure statement 

filed terminating attorney Kons and 

adding Thomas L. Cox Jr. (Dallas, 

TX) as attorney for Objectors 

Chandler and Cox (himself)

• 9/14/2010: Objectors Douglas 

Hilbert, Kelly Marie Spann, Kent 

Stephens, David Borgmeyer, Jarvis 

Gutridge, Earl Hortiz, Mark Schulte 

and Munir Abu-Nader

– filed by Jonathan E. Fortman (St. 

Louis, MO) (Attorney for Class 

Members Douglas Hilbert, Kelly

Marie Spann, and Kent Stephens); 

Attorney Fortman is only attorney 

to file disclosure statement for 

appellants in Appeal No. #10-3146

– John C. Kress(St. Louis, MO)

(Attorney for Class Members 

David Borgmeyer, Jarvis Gutridge 

and Earl Hortiz);

– J. Scott Kessinger (Kapaa, HI) 

(Attorney for Class Members Mark 

Schulte and Munir Abu-Nader)

• 9/14/2010: Objector Jeannine Miller

– filed by Steve A. Miller/Steve A. 

Miller, PC (Denver, CO) 

• 9/15/2010: Objector Scott Kimball III

– filed by Mark A Lindow/Lindow, 

Stephens, Treat LLP (San Antonio, TX) 

• 9/15/2010: Objector Clyde Farrel 

Padgett

– filed pro se by Clyde F. Padgett 

(Lufkin, TX)

• 11/19/2010: Objector David 

Marlow130

– filed by James H. Price/Lacy, Price 

& Wagner, PC (Knoxville, TN)

• 2/16/2011: Appeal #10-3141—

voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion133

• 2/10/2011: Appeal #10-3146—

voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion134

• 2/16/2011: Appeal #10-3157—

voluntarily dismissed pursuant to 

Objectors’ FRAP 42(b) motion135

• 2/10/2011: Appeal #10-3158—

voluntarily dismissed pursuant to 

Objectors’ FRAP 42(b) motion136

• 2/10/2011: Appeal #10-3185—

voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion137

• 2/10/2011: Appeal #10-

3689—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objectors’ FRAP 

42(b) motion138

• 9/29/2010: Plaintiff 

motioned for ObjectorAppellants in Appeal

Nos. #10-3141, 10-3146, 

10-3157, 10-3158, & 10-

3185 to post an 

appellate cost bond of 

$80,000 each.143

• 11/2/2010: Court 

denied class 

representatives’ motion 

for an appeal bond.144

• See Plaintiffs’ 9/29/2010 

bond motion above

• See Plaintiffs’ 9/29/2010 

bond motion above

• See Plaintiffs’ 9/29/2010 

bond motion above

• See Plaintiffs’ 9/29/2010 

bond motion above

• No request for cost 

bond

Western District of Wisconsin: 0 objector appeals
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 45

80. Includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or after January 1, 2008, in which 

final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed from between January 1, 2008, through March 1, 2013.

81. See Memorandum of Law (I) In Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; (II) In Response to Timely Objections to the Settlement 

Agreement; and (III) In Response to Objections to the Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses of Class Counsel (Doc. #171) (filed Apr. 24, 2012) (all 6

objections were filed pro se).

82. See Final Order and Judgment (Doc. #177) (Apr. 10, 2012); Order awarding attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service award 

(Doc. #179) (Apr. 10, 2012).

83. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement; Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Christopher A. Bandas for Appellant Aaron Petrus; amended Docketing Statement; Objector’s 

FRAP 42(b) motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal.

84. See Plaintiffs’ Motion to Direct Objector to Post Appeal Bond (Doc. #187) (June 28, 2012). Plaintiffs asserted that $25,000 was a 

conservative estimate of the costs both they and Defendants would incur during the pendency of the appeals including thousands of dollars of costs 

associated with filing briefs to be prepared in multiple copies by a professional appellate printer; increased administrative expenses from the delay 

caused by Objector’s appeal, which would include, among other expenses, additional expenses necessary to extend website maintenance and to 

process and respond to written and verbal inquiries about the status of claims processing during the appeal, as well as prepare and serve all 

necessary accounting and tax documents.

85. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Settlement (Doc. #163) (filed Mar. 8, 2011) & Ex. 3 Klonoff Declaration (3 of the 10 

total objections were filed pro se, and remaining 7 were filed by counsel on the Objectors behalf).

86. See In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Sales Tax Litig., 792 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2011) (Memorandum Opinion and 

Order granting final approval to class action settlement and dismissing all claims without prejudice until June 1, 2012, after which the dismissal is 

with prejudice); In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Sales Tax Litig., 792 F.Supp.2d 1028 (N.D. Ill. June 2, 2011) (Memorandum Opinion and 

Order grants in part and denies in part class counsel's motion for approval of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and for approval of incentive 

awards for class representatives).

87. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (incomplete); joint motion by Objectors/appellants and appellee AT&T to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice pursuant to Rule

42(b). The Second Circuit notified Objectors/Appellants Vrana and Fisher that they had until July 22, 2011, to file a completed Circuit Rule 3(c) 

docketing statement containing a statement of jurisdiction sufficient to establish diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction. See Order, No. 11-

2490 (2d Cir. July 15, 2011) (Doc. #14). Objectors/Appellants Vrana and Fisher filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on July 22, 2011. 

88. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement; joint motion by Objector/appellant and appellee AT&T to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 42(b).

89. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Amended 

Docketing Statement; Amended Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Thomas L. Cox, Jr.; Response in opposition to motion to dismiss; 3 

Motions for extensions of time to file appellant brief (granted); Objectors’ motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

90. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (amended to establish diversity of citizenship); Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Gary W. Sibley for Appellant Paige Nash in 11-

2497; Response in opposition to motion to dismiss; 3 Motions for extensions of time to file appellant brief (granted); Appellant Brief filed (brief 

rejected as procedurally deficient and resubmission must occur within 7 days); motion to accept resubmitted appellant brief; Objector’s motion to 

voluntarily dismiss appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

91. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (amended to establish diversity jurisdiction); Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer for Appellant Margaret 

Strohlein in 11-2522; Response in opposition to motion to dismiss; 3 Motions for extensions of time to file appellant brief (granted); Joint

Appellant Brief filed (brief rejected as procedurally deficient and resubmission must occur within 7 days); motion to resubmit late joint appellant 

brief (granted); joint brief of objectors-appellants filed; Voluntary Joint Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Rule 42(b) of Appellants Margaret 

Strohlein, Mike Hale, Summer Hogan, Michael Schultz and Omar Rivero, filed on December 5, 2011, by counsel for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 

11-2522 and 11-2588.

92. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Docketing Statement

(amended to establish diversity jurisdiction); Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Christopher Bandas for Appellants Mike Hale, Summer 

Hogan, Omar S. Rivero and Michael Schulz in 11-2588; Response in opposition to motion to dismiss; 3 Motions for extensions of time to file 

appellant brief (granted); Appellant Brief filed (brief rejected as procedurally deficient and resubmission must occur within 7 days); motion to 

resubmit late joint appellant brief granted; joint brief of objectors-appellants filed; Voluntary Joint Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Rule 42(b) of 
46 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

Appellants Margaret Strohlein, Mike Hale, Summer Hogan, Michael Schultz and Omar Rivero, filed on December 5, 2011, by counsel for the 

appellants in 11-2522 and 11-2588.

93. See Motion and Memorandum by Service List for Bond (to Require Objectors/Appellants to Post Appeal Bond) (Docs. #242 & 243) (filed July 

22, 2011).

94. See Minute Entry for Motion Hearing Held on July 28, 2011 on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #251) (filed July 28, 2011). The 

Court granted Class Representatives’ motion to require objectors/appellants to post an appeal bond, and ordered each Objector to post a bond of 

$4,500 by 8/11/11.

95. See Plaintiffs’ Motion & Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and 

Incentive Award (Doc. #108) (filed Nov. 16, 2011).

96. See Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #113) (filed Nov. 30, 2011); Final Approval of Class Certification (Doc. #112) (filed 

Nov. 30, 2011); and Final Judgment Order (Doc. #115) (filed Dec. 6, 2011).

97. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Second Amended 

Docketing Statement; Motion for extension to file appellant brief (granted); Objector’s FRAP 42(b) motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal.

98. Representative Plaintiff Marlene Willard was a party to the settlement agreement, which provided that upon entry of final approval, the 

similar action she brought in the Northern District of Georgia (Willard v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 1:10-cv-0271 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2010)) would 

be dismissed with prejudice. On June 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated its March 2, 2010, order conditionally 

transferring the Schulte and Willard class actions to the Southern District of Florida and ruled that in light of the settlement reached between 

Plaintiffs Schulte and Willard and the Defendant, that these cases should not be transferred into MDL No. 2036, In re Checking Account Overdraft 

Litig., which was pending in the Southern District of Florida. See In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. MDL 2036, 715 F.Supp.2d 1358 

(J.P.M.L. June 3, 2010). 

99. See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Motion for Final Approval (Doc. #103-1) (filed Mar. 7, 2011) (11 objections were filed pro se in letter format and 2 

objections were filed by class members represented by attorneys who were also members of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Checking 

Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 09-md-2036 (S.D. Fla. June 10, 2009). On March 14, 2011, the court granted a joint motion filed by the 4

objectors represented by counsel (Laura Kannapel, Michelle Keyes, Amanda Ratliff, and Verdel Ratliff) for a temporary protective order precluding 

the taking of their depositions and the production of documents in response to subpoenas served upon them by Plaintiffs counsel. See Protective 

Order Precluding Depositions and Production of Subpoenaed Documents (Doc. #111) (filed Mar. 14, 2011).

100. See Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #124) (filed July 29, 2011) and Judgment (Doc. #125) (filed July 29, 2011). 

101. Appellant/Objector Keyes was the named plaintiff in Keyes v. Fifth Third Bank, No 10-cv-2283 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2010), an overlappng 

class action that was made part of MDL 2036, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, pending in the Southern District of Florida. Represented 

by the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in MDL No. 2036, Appellants/Objectors Michelle Keyes, Amanda Ratliff and Verdel Ratliff filed an objection 

to Representative Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in addition to objecting to the proposed final settlement. 

102. Bruce S. Rogow/Alters Law Firm, P.A. (Miami, FL); Aaron S. Podhurst, Robert C. Josefsberg, Peter Prieto, John Gravante, III/Podhurst 

Orseck, P. A. (Miami, FL); Robert C. Gilbert, Stuart Z. Grossman/ Grossman Roth, P.A. (Coral Gables, FL); Michael W. Sobol, David Stellings, 

Roger Heller, Jordan Elias/ Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (San Francisco, CA); E. Adam Webb, G. Franklin Lemond, Jr./ Webb, Klase 

& Lemond, L.L.C. (Atlanta, GA); Ted E. Trief, Barbara E. Olk/ Trief & Olk (New York, NY); Ruben Honik, Kenneth J. Grunfeld/ Golomb & Honik, 

P.C. (Philadelphia, PA); Russell W. Budd, Bruce W. Steckler, Mazin Sbaiti/ Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas, TX).

103. Appellant/Objector Laura K. Kannapel was represented by the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Checking Account Overdraft 

Litigation, MDL No. 2036 (S.D. Fla. June 10, 2009) in addition to Cohen & Malad, LLP (Indianapolis, IN) when she filed her original objection.

104. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/ Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Timothy P. Mahoney; Objectors’ FRAP 42(b) 

motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal.

105. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/ Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Sam P. Cannata; Response in Opposition to 

Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff-Appellant Northcoast Mattress & Recycling LLC by and through it attorney Sam P. Cannata FRAP 42(b) 

motion for voluntary dismissal of Appeal No. 11-2964. On Sept. 15, 2011, Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the Appeal of Northcoast 

Mattress & Recycling LLC for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that because Northcoast did not object to the settlement in the District Court and was not 

a “party” to the litigation under Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court lacked jurisdiction over its appeal and the appeal 

should be dismissed. See Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Case, No. 11-2964 (7th Cir. Sept. 15, 2011) (Doc. #21). On September 26, 2011, Sam Cannata 

on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant Northcoast Mattress & Recycling LLC filed both a response to Appellees’ motion to dismiss and a FRAP 42(b) 

motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 11-2964. See Response in Opposition by Appellant Northcoast Mattress & Recyling, LLC to Motion to Dismiss

& Motion filed by Appellant Northcoast Mattress & Recyling, LLC to Dismiss Case, No. 11-2964 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 2011) (Docs. #22 & 23).
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 47

106. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/ Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Scott D. Gilchrist; Objector’s FRAP 42(b) motion 

to voluntarily dismiss appeal.

107. See Representative Plaintiffs’ Motion for Imposition of Appeal Bonds and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #149) (filed Sept. 20, 

2011). Plaintiffs’ asked the court to order objectors to post a $10,000 cost bond for each of the three appeals to cover the “likely costs and attorneys’ 

fees Settlement Class Counsel will incur in opposing these appeals.”

108. The settlement approved by the court dismissed all claims in both National Council on Compensation Ins., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., No. 1: 

07-cv-2898 (N.D. Ill. filed May 24, 2007) and Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. et al. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-2026 (N.D. Ill. filed April 1, 2009). Brief 

history of the litigation: After the class representative in the original class action 07-2898 was dismissed for lack of standing in 2009, the defendant 

American International Group (AIG) was realigned as the plaintiff because AIG filed counterclaims and a third party complaint against the 24 

insurance companies who were members of the original Plaintiff class. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., Nos. 09-2026, 07-2898 (N.D. 

Ill. May 24, 2007). On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company filed a class action against AIG 

bringing claims that mirrored the claims in the original 07-2898 complaint. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. et al. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 1: 09-cv-2026 

(N.D. Ill. filed April 1, 2009). Two members of the Plaintiff class in Safeco, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and The Hartford Financial Services 

Group, asserted counterclaims against AIG in the original action 07-2829 arising out of AIG’s alleged underreporting of workers compensation 

premiums. On January 13, 2011, the Court granted Settlement Class Plaintiffs (7 companies representing insurance companies that were members 

of the original plaintiff class in 07-2829) leave to intervene in Safeco (09-2026) and leave to file their complaint in intervention to present the terms 

of the settlement reached between Settlement Class Plaintiffs and Defendant AIG. Safeco Insurance Company together with Ohio Casualty 

Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company—all three class members in Appeal No. 09-2026—objected to the settlement even 

before preliminary approval was granted, as well as submitting formal objections after preliminary approval was granted. 

109. See Settlement Class Plaintiffs’ Status Report About Opt-Outs and Objections (Doc. #506 in Appeal No. 09-2026) (filed Oct. 6, 2011). One 

Objection was filed by class members Safeco Ins. Co. of America and Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.—the original plaintiffs in Appeal No. 09-2026 and 

subsidiaries of the Liberty Mutual group of companies. Another Objection was filed by class member Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.—also the counterclaimant against Defendant AIG in 07-2829. A third objection was formally withdrawn prior to final approval of the settlement. 

110. See Order (Doc. #589) (filed Dec. 21, 2011). On November 29, 2011, the court held a final fairness hearing, and on December 21, 2011, 

the court held a hearing on the parties’ various fee petitions. Although the Court’s Order issued on December 21 granted final approval of the 

settlement, that ruling was stayed pending the court's determinations of fees and issuance of a final memorandum opinion.

111. See Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., Nos. 07-cv-2898, 09-cv-2026, 2012 WL 651727 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2012). The court 

entered Final Judgment on March 1, 2012 (Doc. #614) (filed Mar. 1, 2012).

112. After the Objector-Appellants received notice from the Seventh Circuit on January 26, 2012, that the district court’s December 21, 2011,

Order may not be a final appealable judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Safeco Ins. Co. and Liberty Mutual filed additional notices of 

appeal from the district court’s February 28, 2012, Memorandum Opinion and Order and March 1, 2012 Final Judgment. On April 2, 2012, the 

Seventh Circuit granted the Appellants’ motions to consolidate the 6 appeals for briefing and disposition: Appeal Nos. 12-1157, 12-1158, 12-1186, 

12-1730, 12-1753, 12-1764. 

113. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 710 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2013). On November 29, 2012, a three-judge panel (Chief

Judge Frank Easterbrook, and Circuit Judges Richard Posner and Daniel Manion) heard oral arguments on the consolidated appeals and took them 

under advisement. Before the panel issued its decision, on January 11, 2013, all parties to the 6 appeals reached a settlement and they all agreed 

(except for appellee ACE INA Holdings) to stipulate and file with the court an Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice, each party to bear its 

own FRAP 39 costs. Although ACE INA Holdings did not join the stipulation, it did not oppose the settlement and request for dismissal. See Motion 

filed by Appellants to Dismiss Case, Appeal Nos. 12-1157, 12-1158, 12-1186, 12-1730, 12-1753, 12-1764 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013) (Doc. #143). On 

January 14, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to supplement their “agreed stipulation of dismissal” to address (1) whether the settlement of the 

dispute underlying the appeals should be approved by the district court as affecting the class settlement approved in February 2012, and (2) whether 

the appellants should be allowed to reinstate their appeal if the district court refused to approve their settlement. See Order re: "Agreed Stipulation of 

Dismissal," Appeal Nos. 12-1157, 12-1158, 12-1186, 12-1730, 12-1753, 12-1764 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013) (Doc. #144). In an opinion written by Chief 

Judge Easterbrook, the majority concluded that since none of the parties were objecting to the settlement between Liberty Mutual and AIG, since 

the terms of their separate settlement did not undo or effect the original settlement approved by the district court in any way, and since there was no 

one wanting to adjudicate the case any further, then the appeals should be dismissed. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 710 F.3d at 758. Although Judge 

Easterbrook did not appear to be troubled by the settlement between Liberty Mutual and AIG that was reached while the appeal was pending as 

long as this “de facto opt-out on appeal” did not call into question the settlement’s fairness to the other class members, in his dissent Judge Posner 

felt the court had dismissed the appeal too quickly without actually examining the terms of the settlement between Liberty Mutual and AIG: “We 

don’t know the terms of the settlement on which dismissal is predicated, so we don’t know whether the settlement sells out the interests of the class. 

But it may.” Id. (Posner, J., dissenting). Judge Posner suggested that a request for a voluntary dismissal in the class action context deserves closer 

scrutiny. Id. at 761–62.

114. See id.
48 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

115. See id.

116. See id.

117. See id.

118. See id.

119. See Plaintiff’s Response to Objections to Class Action Settlement (Doc. #59) (filed July 1, 2011) (One of the five objections was deemed 

invalid because the objector’s wife and not the objector was a class member. The remaining four objections were filed pro se in letter format, 

although the six-page objection filed pro se by “Grace M. Cannata Pro Se Objector” stated at the conclusion of her objection that “she intends to 

hire Attorney Sam P. Cannata to represent her interests in this matter.”)

120. See Order of Final Approval (Doc. #63) (filed July 14, 2011).

121. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/ Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Sam Cannata; opposition to appellees motion to 

dismiss the appeal; Objector’s Rule 42(b) motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal.

122. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appellate Cost Bond (Doc. #68) (filed Aug. 30, 2011). Plaintiffs requested that Objector Grace Cannata and/or 

her counsel, Sam Cannata, be required to post a bond of $5,000.00, based on a reasonable estimate of the taxable costs that are likely to be incurred, 

but limited to costs described in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 such as the costs of copying briefs and appendices, 

preparation and transmission of the record on appeal, and obtaining the court reporter’s transcript.

123. See Representative Plaintiff’s Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award 

of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Incentive Award (Doc. #205) (filed Jan. 3, 2012) (Representative Plaintiff responds to objections submitted by 

the sole Objector Michael Gatto, filed by his attorney Sam P. Cannata, and Representative Plaintiff asked the court to make a finding of frivolity and 

bad faith in connection with Michael Gatto’s objection.). On January 3, 2012, Settlement Class Counsel served Michael Gatto with a subpoena for a 

deposition. The subpoena was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and the deposition was noticed for 

January 6, 2012 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Doc. #210) (filed Jan. 3, 2012) On January 4, 2012, Gatto filed a motion to quash the subpoena. (Doc. #211) 

(filed Jan. 4, 2012) Plaintiffs argued that the deposition and documents were needed to determine the legitimacy of Gatto’s objection given Gatto’s 

attorney Cannata’s history and Gatto’s lack of knowledge of his objection. (Doc. #212) (filed Jan. 4, 2012) The district court denied Objector Gatto’s 

motion to quash declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because a motion to quash must be presented to the court for the district in which the 

deposition would occur. (Doc. #213) (filed Jan. 5, 2012) Attorney Cannata responds in outrage to the “ad hominem attacks and name calling 

against the Plaintiff-Objector and his counsel” that Representative Plaintiff and their Class Counsel had resorted to. (Doc. #214) (filed Jan. 5, 2012) 

Following Objector Gatto’s deposition that was held on Jan. 9, 2012 in the Southern District of Ohio, Class counsel submitted 7-page reply arguing 

that the deposition revealed Gatto’s lack of familiarity with his objections and showed his hatred for class action cases in general. Class counsel 

repeated their original request for a finding that the objection was frivolous and filed in bad faith. (Doc. #215) (Jan. 9, 2012).

124. See Decision and Order (Doc. #216) (filed Jan. 10, 2012) (Representative Plaintiff asked the court to make a finding of frivolity and bad 

faith in connection with Michael Gatto’s objection. District Judge Lynn Adelman addressed each of Objector Gatto’s seven arguments and 

concluded that “[w]hile the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that Gatto’s objections are clearly frivolous or made in bad faith, he has not made 

any valid arguments that justify altering the terms of the settlement agreement or denying the motion for attorneys’ fees.” Judge Adelman found 

that Gatto’s objections were either mooted by the Settlement Agreement or not supported by credible evidence.). See also Order of Judgment (Doc. 

#217) (filed Jan. 10, 2012).

125. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/ Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Sam Cannata; Objector’s FRAP 42(b) motion to 

voluntarily dismiss the appeal.

126. Representative Plaintiffs Motion for Imposition of Appeal Bond and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #224) (filed Feb. 20, 2012). 

Plaintiffs argued that the Court should order the Objector/Appellant to post an appeal bond in the amount of $25,000 to cover the likely costs and 

attorneys’ fees Settlement Class Counsel would incur in opposing Appellant’s appeal—which would “almost certainly exceed this amount.”

127. See Brief in Support filed by All Plaintiffs (Doc. #334) (filed June 15, 2010) (although 73 total objections were originally filed by class 

members, five objections were withdrawn by June 15, 2010 thus resulting in 68 final objections submitted).

128. See In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 733 F.Supp.2d 997 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 16, 2010). See also the five 

individual Orders and Judgments filed on August 16, 2010 approving five settlement agreements between the plaintiff class and all defendants and 

awarding attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel, thereby resolving all actions that were transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes by the 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into MDL 1999: MTD Settlement (Doc. #381); Group of Six Settlement (Doc. #382); Honda Settlement (#383); 

Kawasaki Settlement (Doc. #384); and Kohler Co. Settlement (Doc. #385).

129. The Seventh Circuit consolidated all 8 appeals for purposes of briefing and disposition: Appeal Nos. 10-2971, 10-3127, 10-3141, 10-3146, 

10-3157, 10-3158, 10-3185, 10-3689. Note that Appeal No. 10-3154 is not included as it is an appeal by defendant Husqvarna Outdoor Products 

Inc.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B 49

130. On September 13, 2010, Objector David Marlow filed a timely Civil Rule 59(e) motion to amend/correct the judgment. See Motion to 

Amend/Correct Order dated August 16, 2010 by David C Marlow (Doc. #402) (filed Sept. 14, 2010). Briefing was stayed on all appeals filed prior to 

final disposition on the Rule 59(e) motion in the district court. See Order, Appeal Nos. 10-2971, 10-3127, 10-3141, 10-3146, 10-3157, 10-3158, 10-

3185 (7th Cir. Sept. 28, 2010) (Doc. #19). On October 28, 2010, the District Court denied Objector Marlow’s motion to amend, and appellant briefs 

in all consolidated appeals were due on Dec. 15, 2010, and then extended to Jan. 18, 2011. See Order Denying Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. #468)

(filed Oct. 28, 2010). Objector Marlow filed his notice of appeal on November 19, 2010.

131. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Edward W. Cochran; Objectors’ motion to 

voluntarily dismiss their appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

132. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet; jurisdictional memorandum; status report by Attorney John J. Pentz III for Appellant Carl 

Olson, Jr., on disposition of motion to alter or amend filed by David Marlow; Objector’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule

42(b).

133. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (amended as late)/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet; jurisdictional memorandum; Disclosure statement filed by Attorney 

Thomas L. Cox Jr. for Objector/Appellant Thomas L. Cox Jr.(himself) and Objector/Appellant Karen Chandler, in case 10-3141; Objectors’ motion 

to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

134. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (amended as late); jurisdictional memorandum; Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Jonathan E. Fortman for Appellants Kent 

Stephens, Douglas Hilbert, Kelly M. Spann, David Borgmeyer and Jarvis Gutridge; Objectors’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 

Rule 42(b).

135. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Steve A. Miller; statement of jurisdiction; 

jurisdictional memorandum; Objector’s motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

136. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet/Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Theodore C. Schultz; statement of jurisdiction; 

jurisdictional memorandum; Objector’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

137. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement/Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet; jurisdictional statement; Objector’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 

Rule 42(b).

138. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement (filed late); Objector’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b).

139. See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #393) (filed Aug. 31, 2010). Plaintiffs asserted that an appeal 

bond in the amount of $80,000 was justified in recognition of the following harms to Class Members the appeal will impose: additional Rule 39(c) 

costs of copying, printing, and reproducing documents up to $25,000; costs associated with the prolonged settlement administration period that an 

objector’s appeal necessitates including additional costs associated with website maintenance, online claim filing, claim form processing and 

validation, telephone support, distribution and tax reporting, project management and technical consulting fees, and other miscellaneous 

administrative costs up to $55,000; costs arising from delays to the distribution of settlement benefits including the distribution of cash, warranty 

and injunctive benefits included in the settlement reached in this case; and costs associated with the additional attorneys’ fees incurred while 

defending the Objectors’ appeal. In their Reply briefs, class representatives state that they are not asking for a cost bond that includes class counsel's 

attorneys’ fees as well as the costs attributable to the delay in distributing settlement benefits to class members. See Reply Brief (Doc. #464) (filed 

Oct. 12, 2010) & Reply Brief (Doc. #469) (filed Nov. 1, 2010).

140. See In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL 08-1999, 2010 WL 4630846 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2010). 

The court stated that the “text of the rule indicates that only one element must be met before a bond may be required—namely, that the district 

court finds a bond “necessary to ensure” payment of costs on appeal. Thus, if the movant points to facts giving rise to a reasonable probability that 

the appellant will fail to pay any costs taxed by the court of appeals when the appeal is over, the district court should require a bond.” Id. at *1. The 

Court rejected class representatives argument that there was a risk of nonpayment case because the objecting class members were geographically 

dispersed and represented by attorneys who were alleged to be “professional objectors.” The Court also rejected plaintiffs argument that a bond was 

appropriate because the professional objectors’ appeals were meritless, finding that the “text of Rule 7 does not indicate that the district court 

should consider the merits of the appeal when deciding whether to require an appeal bond.” Id. To the extent that the merits are relevant to the risk 

of nonpayment, the Court could not conclude that the appeals were meritless or pursued for an improper purpose based upon the evidence on the 

record, refusing the give any weight to other cases cited by class representatives in which district courts found that certain of the attorneys 

representing the objectors in these appeals had objected in bad faith. Id.
50 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix B

141. See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #413) (filed Sept. 14, 2010). See supra note 139 for a 

description of the costs included in the $80,000 bond amount requested by plaintiffs.

142. See supra note 140 for details regarding the court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for an appeal bond in In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower 

Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL 08-1999, 2010 WL 4630846 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2010). 

143. See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #457) (filed Sept. 29, 2010). Plaintiffs filed this motion asking 

the Court for an Order requiring five Objectors’ attorneys that Plaintiffs alleged are professional objectors—counsel Mark Lindow, Steve A. Miller, 

Thomas Cox, Jr., J. Scott Kessinger and Clyde Padgett—to post an appeal bond in the amount of $80,000 for each appeal. Plaintiffs argued that 

“although their clients have the unquestioned right to appeal the Court’s Orders, the Court has the power to protect the parties and the class from 

the damage and delay serial objectors cause.” See supra note 139 for a description of the costs included in the $80,000 bond amount requested by 

plaintiffs.

144. See supra note 140 for details regarding the court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for an appeal bond in In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower 

Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. MDL 08-1999, 2010 WL 4630846 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2010). 
Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

January 1, 2008 – July 1, 2013

FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 53

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

District of Alaska: 0 objector appeals

District of Arizona: 3 objector appeals

In re LifeLock, Inc., Marketing and 

Sales Practices Litigation, No. 2:08-

md-1977 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2008)

• MDL 

• 20 Objections Submitted146

• 8/31/2010: Order and Final 

Judgment granting (1) joint 

motion for final approval of class 

action settlement ; and 

(2) motion for attorneys’ fees, 

expenses and incentive fees147

3 Appeals Filed:

• 9/24/2010: Objector Billy Daniels

– filed by Darrell Palmer/Law Offices 

of Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 9/24/2010: Objector James E. Pentz

– filed by John J. Pentz/ Class Action 

Fairness Group (Maynard, MA)

• 9/19/2011: Objectors Kris Klinge and 

Tracey Cox Klinge

– filed by Thomas L. Cox, Jr./The Cox 

Firm (Dallas, TX)

• 1/06/2011: Appeal No. 10-

17177—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion148

• 1/05/2011: Appeal No. 10-

17318—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion149

• 12/30/2010: Appeal No. 10-

17180—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion150

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Central District of California: 12 objector appeals

Munoz v. J.C. Penny Corp., Inc., No. 

2:09-cv-00833 (C.D Cal. Feb. 3, 

2009)

• 2 Objections Submitted151

• 9/22/2010: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with prejudice 

granting final approval of the 

settlement agreement and 

awarding attorneys’ fees and 

costs.152

1 Appeal Filed:

• 10/22/2010: Objector Maria Fernandez

– filed by attorney David M. 

deRubertis/The deRubertis Law 

Firm, APC (Studio City, CA)

• 12/20/2010: Appeal No. 10-

56678—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion153

• No motion for cost 

bond

Frederick v. FIA Card Services, N.A., 

No. 2:09-cv-03419 (C.D. Cal. May 

14, 2009).

• 3 Objections Submitted154

• 8/25/2011: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with 

prejudice; Amended Order 

granting final approval of class 

settlement and awarding 

attorney fees and costs and 

incentive awards.155

2 Appeals Filed:

• 9/14/2011: Objector Robert J. Gaudet

– filed pro se

– 8/7/2012: notice of appearance 

entered by Michael S. Brown/Law 

Office of Michael S. Brown LLC 

(Renton, WA)

– notice of appeal amended to include 

Court’s 12/5/2011 FRAP 7 Bond 

Order; Court’s 4/12/2012 Order 

refusing to accept late payment of 

bond; and 5/21/2012 Order denying 

Objector’s motion for 

reconsideration

• 09/14/2012: Appeal No. 11-

56609—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion156

• 11/7/2011: Plaintiffs 

asked Court to order 

Objector Gaudet to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $20,000158

• 12/5/2011: court 

ordered that Objector 

Gaudet’s right to 

appeal was 

conditioned upon his 

posting a $1,000

appellate bond within 

30 days159
54 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 9/22/2011: Objectors Karen Chandler 

and Nikki Johnson

– filed pro se

– 10/12/2011: notice of appearance 

entered by Thomas L. Cox/The Cox 

Firm (Dallas, TX) for Appellants 

Chandler and Johnson

• 11/8/2011: Appeal No. 11-

56668—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion157

• Appeal No. 11-56668 

dismissed prior to 

Plaintiffs’ cost bond 

motion

Fairchild v. AOL, LLC, No. 2:09-cv03568 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2009)

• Consolidated class action

• 2 Objections Submitted160

• 12/31/2009: Order and Final 

Judgment granting motion by 

settlement class plaintiffs for final 

approval of class action 

settlement161

• 1/4/2010: Order granting motion 

for attorney fees162

1 Appeal Filed:

• 1/26/2010: Objector Darren McKinney

– filed by Theodore H. Frank/ Center 

for Class Action Fairness 

(Washington, DC)

• 9/20/2012: Appeal No. 10-

55129—Judgment of the district 

court reversed in part, affirmed 

in part, and remanded per 

published opinion163

• No motion for cost 

bond

Stern v. Singular Wireless Service, 

No. 8:09-cv-01112 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 

15, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action164

• 9 Objections Submitted165

• 11/22/2010: Order granting 

(1) final approval to the UCC 

settlement and entering final 

judgment; and (2) application for 

award of attorneys' fees and 

reimbursement of expenses to 

class counsel, and incentive 

awards for class representatives166

2 Appeals Filed:167

• 12/9/2010: Objectors Gene Hopkins 

and Marc Gambello

– filed by Darrell Palmer/Law Offices of 

Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 12/23/2010: Objectors Karin Lynch

– filed by J. Garrett Kendrick/

Kendrick & Nutley (Pasadena, CA); 

John W. Davis/Law Office of John 

W. Davis (San Diego, CA)

• 6/19/2012: Appeal No. 10-

56929—Judgment of the district 

court affirmed per unpublished 

opinion168

• 6/19/2012: Appeal No. 10-

57062—Judgment of the district 

court affirmed per unpublished 

opinion169

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Kambiz Batmanghelich v. Sirius XM 

Radio Inc., No. 2:09-cv-09190 (C.D. 

Cal. Sept. 25, 2009)

• 3 Objections Submitted170

• 9/15/2011: Final Order and 

Judgment granting (1) Plaintiff’s 

motion for final approval of class 

action settlement; and 

(2) Plaintiff’s unopposed 

application for attorneys’ fees 

and costs, class representative’s 

service payment, and settlement 

administration expenses.171

2 Appeals Filed:

• 10/10/2011: Objector Dave Denny

– filed by John W. Davis/Law Office of 

John W. Davis San Diego, CA).

• 10/13/2011: Objectors Michelle Melton 

and Edmund F. Bandas172

– filed by Darrell Palmer/Law Offices 

of Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, 

CA).

• 11/10/2011: Appeal No. 11-

56756—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion173

• 11/9/2011: Appeal No. 11-

56776—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion174

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 55

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 

No. 2:10-cv-00336 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 

15, 2010)

• 8 Objections Submitted175

• 11/22/2011: Final Approval 

Order granting final approval to 

the class action settlement, and 

awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and class representative’s service 

award176

2 Appeals Filed:

• 12/22/2011: Objector Andrew Cesare

– filed by Darrell Palmer/Law Offices 

of Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 1/13/2012: Objector Anthony Cannata

– filed by Sam P. Cannata/Cannata 

Phillips LPA, LLC (Cleveland, OH)

• 1/31/2012: Appeal No. 12-

55002—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties177

• 2/9/2012: Appeal No. 12-

55139—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties178

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Toyota Motor Corporation 

Securities Litigation, No. 2:10-cv00922 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)

• Consolidated Class Action

• 1 Objection Submitted179

• 3/15/2013: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice 

granting motion for final approval 

of the securities class action 

settlement; Order approving plan 

of allocation; and Order granting 

motion for attorneys’ fees and 

reimbursement of litigation 

expenses.180

1 Appeal Filed:

• 4/8/2013: Objector James J. Hayes

– filed pro se

• 5/3/2013: Appeal No. 13-

55613—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion181

• No motion for cost 

bond

Keller v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., No. 

2:11-cv-06158 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 

2011)

• 1 Objection Submitted182

• 3/20/2012: Order granting 

motion for final approval of the 

class action settlement, and 

motion for attorneys’ fees, costs 

and Plaintiff service award.183

1 Appeal Filed:

• 4/17/2012: Objector Bryan Anderson

– filed pro se

• 5/2/2012: Appeal No. 12-

55737—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties 184

• No motion for cost 

bond

Eastern District of California: 0 objector appeals
56 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Northern District of California: 65 objector appeals

In re: Bextra and Celebrex 

Marketing Sales Practices and 

Product Liability Litigation, MDL 

No. 1699, No. 3:05-md-01699 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2005)

• MDL

• 5 Objections Submitted185

• 9/28/2009: Order and Final 

Judgment granting motions for 

(1) final approval of the purchase 

claims class action settlement, 

and (2) attorney fees, 

reimbursement of expenses and 

compensation to named 

plaintiffs.

• 10/09/2009: Second Revised 

Order and Final Judgment 

approving the settlement 

between purchase claims classes 

and Defendant Pfizer, Inc. and 

awarding of attorneys’ fees.186

2 Appeals Filed:

• 10/5/2009: Objectors Barbara Hurst 

and Diane Gibson

– filed by Dennis D. Gibson/Gibson, 

McClure, Wallace & Daniels, LLP 

(Dallas, TX); Mary L. Needham/Law 

Offices of Mary L. Needham (San 

Rafael, CA)

– 10/14/2009: Revised notice of appeal 

to include the 10/9/2009 Revised 

Order and Final Judgment

• 10/27/2009: Objectors Janice Johnson 

and Wilma Thompson

– filed by Michele Miller/McKague & 

Tong, LLP (San Francisco, CA); 

Jeffrey L. Weinstein/ Jeffrey L. 

Weinstein, P.C. (Athens, TX); Steve 

A. Miller/ Steve A. Miller, P.C. 

(Denver, CO)

• 11/12/2009: Appeal No. 09-

17284—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties187

• 11/12/2009: Appeal No. 09-

17420—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties188

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) 

Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827, 

No. 3:07-md-1827 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

20, 2007)

• MDL 

Settlement #1 : Settling Plaintiffs 

(Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and 8 

Settling States) jointly agree to final 

settlement with Settling Defendants

(7 of the 10 named defendants)

• 18 Objections Submitted189

• 7/11/2012: Final Judgment of 

dismissal with prejudice and 

Order granting final approval of 

combined class, parens patrie,

and governmental entity 

settlements.190

13 Total Appeals Filed

Settlement #1—5 Appeals Filed: 

• 8/6/2012: Objectors Johnny Kessel and 

Alison Paul

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer PC (Solano 

Beach, CA)

• 8/8/2012: Objector Andrea Kane

– filed by Grenville Pridham/Law Offices 

of Grenville Pridham (Tustin, CA)

– 09/24/2012: notice of appearance in 

No. 12-16839 for Andrea Kane filed 

by Christopher V. Langone/Law 

Offices of Christopher Langone 

(Ithaca, NY)

• Appeal No. 12-16830—

pending197

• 6/26/2013: Appeal No. 12-

16839—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute198

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 57

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Settlement #2: Settling Plaintiffs 

(Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and 8 

Settling States) jointly agree to final 

settlement with Settling Defendants 

(remaining 3 of the 10 original 

named defendants)

• 11 Objections Submitted191

• 3/29/2013: Order Granting Final 

Approval Of Combined Class, 

Parens Patriae, And 

Governmental Entity Settlements 

With AUO, LG Display, And 

Toshiba Defendants; Final 

• 8/10/2012: Objector Ira Conner Erwin 

– filed pro se

– 9/10/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-16780 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Ira Erwin by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

– 4/29/2013: amended notice of appeal 

adding relevant orders re April 2013 

Settlement #2 (see below)

• 8/10/2012: Objector Luis Mario 

Santana

– filed pro se

– 9/10/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-16782 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Luis Santano by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

– 4/29/2013: amended notice of appeal 

adding relevant orders re April 2013 

Settlement #2 (see below)

• 8/10/2012: Objector Stefan Rest

– filed pro se

– 9/10/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-16788 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Stefan Rest by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

– 4/29/2013: amended notice of appeal 

adding relevant orders re April 2013 

Settlement #2 (see below)

Settlement #2—8 Appeals Filed:

• 4/26/2013: Objectors Alison Paul, 

Johnny Kessel and Leveta Chesser

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer PC (Solano 

Beach, CA)

– 2/22/2013: Objectors Paul and 

Chesser and their counsel Palmer 

appealed from the Order of 

Contempt entered against them on 

2/19/2013196

• Appeal No. 12-16780—

pending199

• Appeal No. 12-16782—

pending200

• Appeal No. 12-16788—

pending201

• 7/12/2013: Appeal No. 13-

15929—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute202

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
58 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Judgment of Dismissal With 

Prejudice; Award of Attorneys 

Fees, Expenses, and Incentive 

Awards192

• 4/1/2013: Amended Order193

• 4/1/2013: Final Judgment Re 

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff/State 

Entity Class Actions194

• 4/3/2013: Second Amended 

Order195

• 4/27/2013: Objector CBC, Inc.

– filed by Micah R. Jacobs/Jacobs Law 

Group SF (San Francisco, CA); Brian 

M. Torres/ Sheftall & Torres, P.A. 

(Miami, FL)

– 8/5/2013: notice of appearance on 

behalf of Appellant CBC, Inc. filed by 

John G. Crabtree/Crabtree & 

Associates, P.A. (Key Biscayne, FL)

• 4/27/2013: Objector Margo Bradley 

– filed by Micah R. Jacobs/Jacobs Law 

Group SF (San Francisco, CA); Brian 

M. Torres/ Sheftall & Torres, P.A. 

(Miami, FL)

– 8/5/2013: notice of appearance on 

behalf of Appellant Bradley filed by 

John G. Crabtree/Crabtree & 

Associates, P.A. (Key Biscayne, FL)

• 4/27/2013: Objector Alex Martinez

– filed by Micah R. Jacobs/Jacobs Law 

Group SF (San Francisco, CA); Brian 

M. Torres/ Sheftall & Torres, P.A. 

(Miami, FL)

– 8/5/2013: notice of appearance on 

behalf of Appellant Bradley filed by 

John G. Crabtree/Crabtree & 

Associates, P.A. (Key Biscayne, FL)

• 4/29/2013: Objectors Barbara Cochran, 

Kevin Luke, Geri Maxwell, Maria 

Marshall, Wayne Marshall and Gerri 

Marshall

– filed by John J. Pentz/ Class Action 

Fairness Group (Maynard, MA) (for 

Objectors Cochran and Luke)

– filed by George W. Cochran/ 

Cochran & Cochran (Louisville, KY) 

(for Objectors Maxwell, Maria 

Marshall, Wayne Marshall and Gerri 

Marshall)

• 4/29/2013: Objectors Shannon 

Cashion, W. Christopher McDonough, 

Kelly Kress, and Mark Schulte

– filed by Steve A. Miller/Steve A. 

Miller, PC (Denver, CO)

– Jonathan E Fortman/Law Office of 

Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC (Ellisville, 

• Appeal No. 13-15920—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15917—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15916—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15930—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15934—pending

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 59

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

MO) (listed for Objector 

McDonough on appeal)

– John C Kress/The Kress Law Firm, 

LLC(St. Louis, MO) (listed for 

Objector Kress on appeal)

• 5/7/2013: Objector Julius Dunmore

– filed by Paul S. Rothstein/ 

(Gainesville, FL)

• 6/13/2013: Objector Keena Dale

– filed by N. Albert Bacharach, Jr./Law 

Offices of N. Albert Bacharach, 

Jr.(Gainesville, FL)

• Appeal No. 13-15915—pending

• Appeal No. 13-16216—pending

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) 

Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917, 

No. 3:07-cv-05944 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

26, 2007)

• MDL

• 1 Objection Submitted203

• 3/22/2012: Order and Final 

Judgment of Dismissal with 

Prejudice granting Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for 

final approval of class action 

settlement with Chunghwa 

Picture Tubes, Ltd.204

1 Appeal Filed:

• 3/23/2012: Objector Sean Hall

– filed pro se

– on 6/14/2012, attorney Joseph 

Darrell Palmer/Law Offices of Darrell 

Palmer (Solana Beach, CA), filed a 

notice of appearance with the Clerk 

of the Ninth Circuit as counsel on 

Mr. Hull’s behalf205

• 7/30/2012: Appeal No. 12-

17602—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion206

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Maxim Integrated Products, 

Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 5:08-

cv-00832 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2008)

• Consolidated Class Action

• 1 Objection Submitted207

• 9/29/2010: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal granting 

motions for final approval of the 

securities class action settlement 

and approving plan of 

allocation.208

• 11/1/2010: Order granting 

motion for attorney fees and 

reimbursement of litigation 

expenses.209

1 Appeal Filed:

• 12/1/2010: Objector National 

Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension 

Fund

– filed by Irwin B. Schwartz/BLA 

Schwartz, PC (Los Angeles, CA)

• 1/4/2011: Appeal No. 10-

17756—voluntarily dismissed

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion210

• No motion for cost 

bond
60 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 

4:08-cv-2820 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 

2008)

• 9 Objections Submitted211

• 5/30/2013: Final Judgment and 

Order of dismissal granting final 

approval of class action 

settlement.212

• 6/19/2013: Order awarding 

attorneys’ fees.213

1 Appeal Filed:

• 6/28/2013: Objector Aaron Miller

– filed by Steve A. Miller/ Steve A. 

Miller, PC (Denver, CO)

• 8/16/2013: Appeal No. 13-

16336—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties214

• No motion for cost 

bond

Lane v. Facebook, No. 5:08-cv03845 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008)

• 4 Objections Submitted215

• 3/17/2010: Order granting 

motion for final approval of class 

action settlement with Defendant 

Facebook.216

• 5/24/2010: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal approving 

settlement and motion for 

attorney fees and costs.217

 

2 Appeals Filed:

• 6/22/2010: Objector Ginger McCall

– filed by Gregory A. Beck/Public 

Citizen Litigation Group 

(Washington, DC); Mark A. 

Chavez/Chavez & Gertler LLP (Mill 

Valley, CA); Philip S. 

Friedman/Friedman Law Offices, 

PLLC (Washington, DC); Michael 

Page/Williams & Connolly LLP

(Washington, DC) (post appeal)

• 6/25/2010: Objectors Megan Marek and 

Benjamin Trotter

– filed by John W. Davis/Law Office of 

John W. Davis (San Diego, CA); 

Steven Helfand/Helfand Law Offices 

(San Francisco, CA) (post appeal)

• 9/20/2012: Appeal No. 10-

16380—Judgment of the district 

court affirmed per published 

opinion218

• 9/20/2012: Appeal No. 10-

16398—Judgment of the district 

court affirmed per published 

opinion219

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

The NVIDIA GPU Litigation, No. 

5:08-cv-04312 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 

2008)

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 50 Objections Submitted220

• 12/20/2010: Final Judgment 

granting (1) settlement class 

plaintiffs/owners of class 

computers motions for final 

approval of class action 

settlement with Nvidia Corp., 

and (2) motion for attorney fees, 

expenses and reimbursements for 

plaintiffs.221

5 Appeals Filed:222

• 1/18/2011: Hewlett Packard Consumer 

Objectors

– filed by Michael F. Ram/Ram & 

Olson LLP (San Francisco, CA); 

Richard B. Rosenthal/The Law 

Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A. 

(San Rafael, CA); Marc H. Edelson/

Edelson & Associates (Doylestown, 

PA)

• 1/18/2011: Objector Frank Barbara 

– filed by Darrell Palmer/Law Offices 

of Darrell Palmer (Solano Beach, 

CA)

• 3/28/2012: Appeal No. 11-

15182—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion223

• Appeal No. 11-15186—

pending224

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 61

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 1/18/2011: Objector Steven F. Helfand

– filed by Marcus Daniel 

Merchasin/The Law Office of Marcus 

Daniel Merchasin (San Francisco, 

CA); John W. Davis/Law Office of 

John W. Davis (San Diego, CA) (post 

appeal)

• 1/19/2011: Objector Chase A.

Thompson

– filed by Steve A. Miller/Steve A. 

Miller, PC (Denver, CO)

• 1/19/2011: Objector Nikki Johnson

– filed pro se

– 01/31/2011: notice of appearance in 

No. 11-15192 for Nikki Johnson filed 

by Thomas L. Cox, Jr./The Cox Firm 

(Dallas, TX)

• Appeal No. 11-15190—

pending225

• Appeal No. 11-15191—

pending226

• Appeal No. 11-15192—

pending227

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Ross v. Trex Company, Inc., No. 

3:09-cv-00670 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 

2009)228 

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 18 Objections Submitted229

• 3/16/2010: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

the class action settlement of the 

surface flaking claims asserted by 

plaintiffs in the Ross action (09-

cv-00670) against Defendant 

Trex Company, Inc.; 

(2) approval of requested 

attorneys’ fees and expenses to 

class counsel, and separate 

incentive awards to named 

plaintiffs.230

• 4/7/2010: Final Order approving 

class action settlement of Ross

plaintiffs’ surface flaking claims, 

overruling all objections, and 

dismissing released claims with 

prejudice.231

1 Appeal Filed:

• 4/14/2010: Objectors Mark Okano and 

Sharon Ding

– filed by Steve W. Berman/Hagens 

Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Seattle, 

WA)

• 7/30/2010: Appeal No. 10-

15871—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties232

• No motion for cost 

bond
62 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re Wachovia Corporation “PickA-Payment” Mortgage Marketing 

and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 

5:09-md-02015 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13,

2009)

• MDL

• 36 Objections Submitted233

• 5/17/2011: Order and Judgment 

granting settlement class 

Plaintiffs’ (1) motion for final 

approval of class action 

settlement with Defendant 

Wachovia Corporation; and 

(2) motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs and service payments to 

class representatives.234 

3 Appeals Filed:235

• 6/10/2011: Objector Marcella M. Rose

– filed by Lawrence J. Salisbury/ 

Majors & Fox (San Diego, CA); 

Malinda R. Dickenson/Law Office of 

Malinda R. Dickenson (San Diego, 

CA)

• 6/13/2011: Objectors Nathaniel C. 

Dayton, Stephen B. Fine, and Ariel 

Brookman Fine

– filed by William Breck/ The Public 

Interest Law Firm, Inc. (Reno, NV); 

Adriana Dominguez/ Dominguez 

Law Office (Costa Mesa, CA)

• 6/15/2011: Objectors Robert E Flores, 

Sharon L Flores, James Rudolph, and 

Donald Smith

– filed by attorney J. Darrell Palmer/ 

Law Offices of Darrell Palmer 

(Solana Beach, CA)

• 8/30/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16507—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion236

• 6/30/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16510—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties237

• 7/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16513—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties238

• 7/1/2011: Plaintiffs 

asked the court to 

order Objector Rose to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $116,250239

• 8/18/2011: court 

ordered Objector Rose 

to post a $15,000 bond 

by 9/26/2011240

• Appeal No. 11-16510 

dismissed prior to 

Plaintiffs’ appellate cost 

bond motion

• 7/1/2011: Plaintiffs 

filed a motion asking

the court to order 

Objectors Flores, 

Rudolph and Smith to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $116,250241

• Appeal No. 11-16513 

dismissed prior to 

court’s ruling on 

plaintiffs’ cost bond 

motion

Fiori v. Dell, Inc., No. 5:09-cv01518 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 3 Objections Submitted242

• 4/1/2011: Final Judgment and 

Order granting final approval of 

class action settlement.

243

• 7/6/2011: Order granting motion 

for attorney fees, costs, and 

incentive awards.244

1 Appeal Filed:

• 4/26/2011: Objectors Margaret Munoz 

and Cery Perle

– filed by J. Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

– 8/5/2011: appeal amended to add the 

07/06/2011 Order granting class 

counsel’s motion for attorney fees

• 9/7/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16109—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties245

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 63

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re: Online DVD Rental Antitrust 

Litigation, No. 4:09-md-02029 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009)

• MDL

• 30 Objections Submitted246

• 3/29/2012: Order and Final 

Judgment granting: (1) motion 

for final approval of class action 

settlement between settlement 

class Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com 

USA LLC; and (2) class counsel’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees, 

reimbursement of expenses, and 

payments to class 

representatives.247

6 Appeals Filed:248

• 3/30/2012: Objector Theodore H. Frank

– filed pro se

– Mr. Frank is an attorney listing the 

address of the Center for Class 

Action Fairness on his notice of 

appeal

• 4/17/2012: Objector Jon M.

Zimmerman

– filed by Joshua R. Furman/Joshua R. 

Furman Law Corp. (Sherman Oaks,

CA)

• 4/23/2012: Objector Edmund F. Bandas

– filed pro se

– 05/22/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-15957 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Edmund F. Bandas by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 4/27/2012: Objector Maria Cope

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 4/30/2012: Objector John Sullivan

– filed by Mark Lavery/The Lavery Law 

Firm (Des Plaines, IL); Christopher V. 

Langone/ Law Office of Christopher 

Langone (Ithaca, NY); Grenville 

Thomas Pridham/Law Office of 

Grenville Pridham (Tustin, CA)

• 4/30/2012: Objector Tracey Klinge Cox

– filed by Gary W. Sibley & Tracey 

Klinge Cox/The Sibley Firm (Dallas, 

TX)

– 5/18/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-16038 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Tracey Klinge Cox by 

Attorney Gary W. Sibley/The Sibley 

Firm (Dallas, TX)

• Appeal No. 12-15705—pending

• Appeal No. 12-15889—pending

• Appeal No. 12-15957—pending

• Appeal No. 12-15996—pending

• Appeal No. 12-16010—pending

• Appeal No. 12-16038—pending

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
64 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Yingling v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:09-cv01733 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2009)

• 2 Objections Submitted249

• 3/31/2011: Final Order and 

Judgment granting (1) Plaintiffs’ 

motion for final approval of class 

action settlement with Defendant 

eBay; and (2) motion for 

attorney fees and expenses and 

class representative incentive 

compensation awards.250

1 Appeal Filed:

• 4/4/2011: Objector Joseph Balla

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

– 8/5/2011: filed an amended notice of 

appeal to appeal from the courts’ July 

5, 2011 Order requiring Objector 

Balla to post a $5,000 appeal bond

• 8/12/2011:251 Appeal No. 11-

16033—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties252

• 4/25/2011: Plaintiffs 

motioned the court to 

order Objector Balla to 

post a $5,000 appeal 

bond253

• 7/5/2011: court orders 

Objector Balla to post 

an appeal bond in the 

amount of $5,000 on or 

before July 25, 2011254

Embry v. ACER America Corp., No. 

5:09-cv-01808 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 

2009)

• 2 Objections Submitted255

• 2/14/2012: Order granting 

settlement class plaintiffs 

(1) motion for final approval of 

the class action settlement; and 

(2) motion for attorneys fees, 

costs and incentive to named 

plaintiff.256 

2 Appeals Filed:

• 3/12/2012: Objector Christopher 

Bandas

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

– Appeal No. 12-15555 was dismissed 

on 04/18/2012 for failure to pay fees, 

and reinstated on 6/25/12 after 

Objector Bandas’ payment of fees.257

– Notice of Appeal amended on 

8/6/2012 (to include July 31, 2012 

Bond Order) & 9/6/2012 (to include 

Aug. 31, 2012 Contempt Order)258

• 3/14/2012: Objector Sam P. Cannata259

– filed pro se

• 10/2/2012: Appeal No. 12-

15555—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion260

• 6/15/2012: Appeal No. 12-

15633—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion261

• 7/11/2012: After the 

Ninth Circuit reinstated 

Bandas’ appeal on June 

25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed 

a motion for 

reconsideration 

requesting that the 

Court’s June 5, 2012 

Order to post a $70,650 

appellate bond be 

applied, jointly and 

severally, to Bandas and 

his attorney Darrell 

Palmer.

262

• 7/31/2012: court 

ordered Objector

Bandas to post an 

appellate bond of 

$70,650 by Aug. 6, 

2012, or file a notice of 

dismissal of his 

appeal263

• 3/23/2012 & 05/04/2012: 

Plaintiff requests court 

to grant its original 

motion to impose a 

$346,814.51 bond on 

Objector Cannata 

alone264

• 6/5/2012: Court grants

Plaintiffs motion in 

part and requires 

Objector Cannata to 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 65

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

either post an appellate 

bond of $70,650 within 

14 days, or file a notice 

of dismissal of his 

appeal265

In re: MagSafe Apple Power Adapter 

Litigation, No. 5:09-cv-01911 (N.D. 

Cal. May 1, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 11 Objections Submitted266

• 3/8/2012:267 Judgment and Order 

granting: (1) motion for final 

approval of class action 

settlement between settlement 

class Plaintiffs and Defendant 

Apple, Inc.; and (2) plaintiffs’ 

motion for attorneys’ fees, 

reimbursement of expenses, and 

incentive awards. 

5 Appeals Filed:268

• 3/23/2012: Objector Dale Funk

– filed pro se

• 4/3/2012: Objector Robert J. Gaudet

– filed pro se

• 4/6/2012: Objector Marie Gryphon

– filed by Theodore H. Frank/Center 

for Class Action Fairness 

(Washington, DC); Daniel 

Greenberg/Greenberg Legal Services 

(Little Rock, Ark.)

• 4/6/2012: Objector Jeremy Lee

– filed pro se

– 06/13/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-15816 filed on behalf 

of Objector/Appellant Jeremy Lee by 

Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law Offices 

of Darrell Palmer (Solana Beach, CA)

• 5/2/2012: Objector Kerry Ann Sweeney

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 6/19/2012: Appeal No. 12-

15740—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion269

• Appeal No. 12-15757—

pending; notice of appeal 

amended on 08/29/2012 to 

include May 29, 2012 Bond 

Order and Aug. 7, 2012 

Contempt Order270

• Appeal No. 12-15782—

pending; notice of appeal 

amended on 06/02/12 to 

include May 29, 2012 Bond 

Order271

• 7/20/2012: Appeal No. 12-

15816—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion272

• 8/7/2012: Appeal No. 12-

16053—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion273

• 4/16/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

order Objector Funk to 

post an appeal bond in 

the amount of 

$200,000274

• 4/10/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

order Objector Gaudet 

to post an appeal bond 

in the amount of 

$200,000275

• 4/16/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

order Objector 

Gryphon to post an 

appeal bond in the 

amount of $200,000276

• 4/13/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

order Objector Lee to 

post an appeal bond in 

the amount of 

$200,000277

NOTE: On 5/29/2012 for 

Appeals above, the court 

ordered each Objector to 

either post a $15,000 

appeal bond or dismiss 

appeal by June 8, 2012.278

• 6/13/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

order Objector 

Sweeney and her 

attorney Palmer to post 

a $25,000 appeal bond 
66 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

for anticipated taxable

costs279

• 7/6/2012: Objector 

Sweeney is ordered on 

or before July 20, 2012, 

to post a $15,000 bond 

or file a notice of 

dismissal280

Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc., No. 

4:09-cv-02619 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 

2009)

• 3 Objections Submitted281

• 9/10/2012: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

the class action settlement with 

Defendant Natura Pet Products, 

Inc.; (2) motion for attorneys’ 

fees, costs, and incentive 

award.282

1 Appeal Filed:

• 10/11/2012: Objector Alfredo Walsh

– filed pro se

– 11/27/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-17296 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Alfredo Walsh by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 4/24/2013: Appeal No. 12-

17296—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute283

• No motion for cost 

bond

Schulken v. Washington Mutual 

Bank, No. 5:09-cv-02708 (N.D. Cal. 

June 18, 2009).

• 1 Objections Submitted284

• 11/13/2012: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

the class action settlement with 

Defendant JP Morgan Chase 

Bank; (2) motion for attorneys’ 

fees, expenses and incentive 

award.285

1 Appeal Filed:

• 1/30/2013: Objector Donald R. Earl286

– filed pro se

• Appeal No. 13-15191—pending • 2/15/2013: Plaintiffs 

asked court to order 

Objector Earl to 

immediately post a 

$20,000 appeal bond287

• 4/2/2013: The court 

ordered Objector Earl 

to post a $5,000 appeal 

bond288

Lemus v. H&R Block Tax and 

Business Services, Inc., No. 3:09-cv03179 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2009)

• 4 Objections Submitted289

• 8/22/2012: Judgment and Order 

granting final approval of class 

action settlement and awarding 

attorneys’ fees, expenses and 

incentive award.290

• 9/10/2012: Order granting 

Plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration and modifying 

Order granting final approval of 

settlement and award of 

attorneys’ fees.291

1 Appeal Filed:292

• 9/21/2012: Objector Maria D. Merlan

– filed by Douglas Caiafa/Douglas 

Caiafa, A Professional Law 

Corporation (Los Angeles, CA)

• 9/28/2012: Appeal No. 13-

16628—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties293

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 67

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re: Google Buzz Privacy 

Litigation, No. 5:10-cv-00672 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 17, 2010)

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 47 Objections Submitted294

• 5/31/2011: Order granting final 

approval of class action 

settlement, approval of cy pres

awards, and awarding attorney 

fees.295

• 6/2/2011: Amended Order 

granting final approval of class 

action settlement, approval of cy 

pres awards, and awarding 

attorney fees.296

• 6/17/2011: Order granting final 

application for reimbursement of 

expenses.297

5 Appeals Filed:298

• 6/16/2011: Objector Kervin Walsh

– filed by Martin Murphy/ (San 

Francisco, CA) (attorney identified 

on the notice of appeal)

– 07/06/2011: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 11-16587 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Kervin Walsh by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 6/28/2011: Objector Megan Marek 

– filed by C. Benjamin Nutley/Kendrick 

& Nutley (Pasadena, CA); John W. 

Davis/Law Office of John W. Davis 

(San Diego, CA)

• 6/30/2011: Objector Steven Cope

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 6/30/2011: Objectors Brent Clifton and 

Warren Sibley

– filed pro se

– 07/13/2011: notice of appearance in 

No. 11-16640 for Brent Clifton and 

Warren Sibley filed by Thomas L. 

Cox, Jr./The Cox Firm (Dallas, TX)

• 7/1/2011: Objectors Jon M. 

Zimmerman, Alison Jackson, and 

Tanya Rudgayzer

– filed by Joshua R. Furman/Joshua R. 

Furman Law Corp.(Sherman Oaks, 

CA) (for Objector Zimmerman)

– filed by Jeffrey P. Harris & Alan J. 

Statman/Harris, Statman & Eyrich, 

LLC (Cinncinati, OH) (for Objector 

Jackson)

– filed by Daniel A. Osborn/Osborn 

Law, PC (New York, NY)(for 

Objector Rudgayzer)

• 11/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16587—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties299

• 11/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16638—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties300

• 11/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16639—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties301

• 11/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16640—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties302

• 11/21/2011: Appeal No. 11-

16642—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties303

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
68 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Nguyen v. BMW of North America, 

LLC, No. 3:10-cv-02257 (N.D. Cal. 

May 25, 2010)

• Consolidated Class Action

• 11 Objections Submitted304

• 4/20/2012: Order granting final 

approval of joint motion for class 

action settlement305

• 4/20/2012: Order awarding 

attorneys’ fees and costs.306

• 5/08/2012: Final Judgment 

dismissing Defendant with 

prejudice.307

1 Appeal Filed:308

• 5/21/2012: Objectors Devesh M. 

Nirmul, Lawrence C. Weiner, and 

Michael B. Winn

– filed by Jennifer Sarnelli/Gardy & 

Notis, LLP (Englewood Cliffs, NJ); 

William B. Federman/Federman & 

Sherwood (Oklahoma City, OK)

• 7/11/2012: Appeal No. 12-

16210—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties309

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Apple iPhone 4 Products 

Liability Litigation, No. 5:10-md02188 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2010).

• MDL

• 21 Objections Submitted310

• 8/10/2012: Order granting 

motion for final settlement 

approval and motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs.311

3 Appeals Filed:312

• 9/7/2012: Objector Alison Paul

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 9/10/2012: Objector Michael J. Schulz

– filed pro se

– 09/28/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-17004 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Michael J. Schulz by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 9/10/2012: Objector Burt Chapa

– filed pro se

– 09/28/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-17005 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Bert Chapa by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 1/11/2013: Appeal No. 12-

16994—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties313

• 1/11/2013: Appeal No. 12-

17004—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties314

• 1/11/2013: Appeal No. 12-

17005—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties315

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 69

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re: Netflix Privacy Litigation, No.

5:11-cv-00379 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 

2011)

• Consolidated Class Action

• 100 Objections Submitted316

• 3/18/2013: Final Judgment and 

Order of dismissal with prejudice 

granting: (1) motion for final 

approval of class action 

settlement; and (2) motion for 

attorneys’ fees, expenses and 

incentive award.317

6 Appeals Filed:318

• 4/12/2013: Objector Gary Wilens

– filed by Jaffrey Wilens/Lakeshore 

Law Center (Yorba Linda, CA)

• 4/15/2013: Objector Matthew D. 

Tanner

– filed by Clinton A. Krislov/ Krislov & 

Associates, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)

• 4/15/2013: Objectors Stephen C. Griffis 

& Hugh Ramsey

– filed by Steve A. Miller/ Steve A. 

Miller, PC (Denver, CO)

– 07/22/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 13-15734 for Appellants 

Griffis and Ramsey by John Jacob 

Pentz/Class Action Fairness Group 

(Maynard, MA)

• 4/16/2013: Objector Bradley Schulz

– filed by Christopher Andreas Bandas/ 

Bandas Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus 

Christi, TX); Timothy R. Hanigan/ 

(Woodland Hills, CA)

• 4/16/2013: Objectors Andrew Cesare, 

William Ford, & Katherine Strohlein

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer PC (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 4/17/2013: Objector Tracey C. Klinge 

– filed by Thomas L. Cox, Jr./The Cox 

Firm (Dallas, TX)

• Appeal No. 13-15723—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15733—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15734—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15751—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15754—pending

• Appeal No. 13-15759—pending

• 5/31/2013: Plaintiffs 

Asked Court to order 

each Objector to post a 

$21,519 appeal bond319

• Status: Hearing on 

motion set for Aug. 23, 

2013 vacated; court has 

taken bond motion 

under submission 

without oral argument 

on 08/19/2013 with 

order to follow

• Motion pending 

(see above)

• Motion pending 

(see above)

• Motion pending

(see above)

• Motion pending 

(see above)

• Motion pending 

(see above)
70 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Farrell v. OpenTable, Inc., No. 3:11-

cv-01785 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011). 

• 3 Objections Submitted320

• 1/30/2012: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

class action settlement, and 

(2) motion for attorney fees, 

expenses and incentive award.321 

1 Appeal Filed:

• 2/21/2012: Objector Fred Sondheimer

– filed by Lawrence W. 

Schonbrun/Law Office of Lawrence 

W. Schonbrun (Berkeley, CA)

• 5/3/2012: Appeal No. 12-

15370—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion in compliance 

with a court-approved 

stipulation of the parties322

• No motion for cost 

bond

In re Bank of America Credit 

Protection Marketing & Sales 

Practices Litigation, No. 3:11-md02269 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011).

• MDL

• 13 Objections Submitted323

• 1/16/2013: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

class action settlement; and 

(2) motion for attorney fees, 

reimbursement of expenses, and 

service awards.324

2 Appeals Filed:

• 1/24/2013: Objector Beau Lochridge

– filed by attorney Timothy R. 

Hanigan/Lang, Haingnan & 

Carvalho (Woodland Hills, CA) 

(identified as counsel for appellant 

on notice of appeal)

– 1/31/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 13-15170 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Beau Lochridge by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ 

Bandas Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus 

Christi, TX) (appellate record 

indicates “Attorney Timothy R. 

Hanigan substituted by Attorney 

Christopher Andres Bandas”).

• 2/8/2013: Objector Adina Wasserman

– filed pro se

– 03/07/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 13-15276 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Adina Wasserman by 

Allen G. Weinberg/Law Offices of 

Allen G. Weinberg (Beverly Hills, CA)

• 4/10/2013: Appeal No. 13-

15170—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion325

• 3/29/2013: Appeal No. 13-

15276—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

stipulation of the parties326

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Southern District of California: 16 objector appeals

Adams v. AllianceOne Receivables 

Management, Inc., No. 3:08-cv00248 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2008). 

• 6 Objections Submitted327

• 9/28/2012: Order (1) granting 

joint motion for final approval of 

class action settlement; 

(2) granting class counsel’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, 

and service awards.328

2 Appeals Filed:

• 10/25/2012: Objector Gordon B. 

Morgan

– filed pro se

– 12/04/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-56957 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Morgan by Attorney 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 2/4/2013: Appeal No. 12-

56957—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion329

• 11/8/2012: Plaintiffs 

asked the Court to 

impose a $64,536. 69 

appeal bond upon 

Smith, Nelson and 

Morgan, jointly and 

severally;331 grant 

Plaintiffs permission to 

depose and seek 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 71

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

– 12/4/2012: notice of appearance filed 

on behalf of Appellant Morgan in the 

district court by Attorney Joseph 

Darrell Palmer/ Law Offices of 

Darrell Palmer PC (Solana Beach, 

CA)

• 10/26/2012: Objectors Eric B Nelson, 

Mary Margaret Smith

– filed pro se

– 01/31/2013: notice of appearance 

filed on behalf of Appellants Nelson 

& Smith by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ 

Law Offices of Darrell Palmer 

(Solana Beach, CA)

• 2/5/2013: Appeal No. 12-

56970—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion330

documents from 

Objectors’ counsel 

Bandas and Palmer;332

and strike the objection 

and notice of appeal 

fraudulently signed by 

Objector Morgan.333

• 6/20/2013: Plaintiffs’ 

motions were denied as 

moot due to Objectors’ 

voluntary dismissal of 

their claims

• See above

Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 3:09-cv01786 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2009)

• 2 Objections Submitted334

• 4/5/2011: Order Granting 

(1) Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement; (2) Award of 

Attorney's Fees; and 

(3) Judgment of Dismissal.335

2 Appeals Filed:336

• 4/22/2011: Objector Stephanie Berg

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer PC (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 4/29/2011: Objector Omar Rivero

– filed pro se

– 5/20/2011: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 11-55706 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Rivero by Christopher 

Andreas Bandas/ Bandas Law Firm, 

P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 9/4/2012: Appeal No. 11-

55674—Judgment of the district 

court reversed in part, affirmed 

in part, and remanded per 

published opinion337

• 9/4/2012: Appeal No. 11-

55706—Judgment of the district 

court reversed in part, affirmed 

in part, and remanded per 

published opinion338

• 7/8/2011: Plaintiffs’ ask 

for an order requiring 

Objectors Rivero and 

Berg to jointly and 

severally post an appeal 

bond in the amount of 

$3,000 to cover 

appellees’ costs on 

appeal339

• 8/10/2011: Court

ordered Rivero and 

Berg to jointly and 

severally post an appeal 

bond in the amount of 

$3,000340

• See above
72 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re: Easysaver Rewards Litigation, 

No. 3:09-cv-02094 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

24, 2009)

• Consolidated Class Action

• 1 Objection Submitted341

• 2/4/2013: Final Order Approving 

Class Settlement; granting 

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' 

Fees, Costs, and Incentive 

Awards.342

• 2/21/2013: Final Judgment in 

favor of Settlement Class against 

Defendants, and dismissing the 

action with prejudice.343

1 Appeal Filed:344

• 3/4/2013: Objector Brian Perryman

– filed by Theodore H. Frank/ Center 

for Class Action Fairness 

(Washington, DC)

– 6/5/2013: notice of appeal amended 

to include May 5, 2013 Order 

Granting Motion for Appeal Bond

• Appeal No. 13-55373—

pending.

• 3/14/2013: Plaintiffs’ 

ask that the court 

require Objector 

Perrymn to post an 

appellate cost bond of 

at least $15,000345

• 5/6/2013: Court 

ordered that on or 

before May 31, 2013, 

Objector Perryman 

must either post a 

$15,000 bond or file a 

notice of dismissal of 

his appeal346

Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc., No. 

3:10-cv-02666 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 

2010)

• 2 Objections Submitted347

• 4/13/2012: Final Judgment and 

Order granting final approval of 

the class action settlement and 

awarding costs and incentive 

awards.348

• 6/5/2012: Order awarding 

attorneys’ fees to class counsel 

and Objector’s counsel349

1 Appeal Filed:

• 7/5/2012: Objector Susan Kreidler

– filed by Paul R. Kiesel/Kiesel 

Boucher Larrson LLP(Beverly Hills, 

CA)

• 9/5/2012: Appeal No. 12-

56256—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties and Objector/

Appellant’s withdrawal of 

objections to the courtapproved class action 

settlement350

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 73

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re Ferrero Litigation, No. 3:11-cv00205 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011). 

• Consolidated Class Action

• 2 Objections Submitted351

• 7/9/2012: Final Judgment and 

Order granting final approval of 

the class action settlement; 

granting plaintiffs’ motion for 

attorney fees and costs; and 

incentive awards.352

2 Appeals Filed:353

• 8/7/2012: Objectors Courtney Drey and 

Andrea Pridham

– filed by attorney Grenville Pridham/ 

Law Office of Grenville Pridham 

(Tustin, CA)

– 9/7/2012: notice of appearance in 

No. 12-56469 by Christopher V. 

Langone for Appellants Drey and 

Pridham

• 8/9/2012: Objector Michael Hale

– filed pro se

– 10/03/2012: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-56478 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Hale by Attorney 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• Appeal No. 12-56469—

pending354

• Appeal No. 12-56478—pending

• 10/11/2012: Plaintiffs 

ask court to impose a

$21,970.72 appeal 

bond, jointly and 

severally, on Objectors 

Drey, Pridham and 

Hale355

• 11/9/2012: Court 

denied Plaintiffs’ 

request to impose an 

appeal bond on 

Objectors356

• See above

In re: Groupon, Inc., Marketing and 

Sales Practices Litigation, No. 3:11-

md-02238 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2011).

• MDL

• 18 Objections Submitted357

• 12/18/2012: Order and Final 

Judgment approving the class 

action settlement and awarding 

class counsel an amount deemed 

as reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

expenses. Objector’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs 

denied.358

4 Appeals Filed:

• 1/17/2013: Objector Padraigin Browne

– filed by attorney Brett L. Gibbs/ (Mill 

Valley, CA)

– 4/5/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 13-55118 on behalf of 

Appellant Browne filed by Attorney 

Paul Robert Hansmeier/Class Action 

Justice Institute LLC (Minneapolis, 

MN)

– 5/31/2013: Attorney Hansmeier files 

notice of withdrawal from Appeal 

No. 13-55118 as ordered by the 

Court359

– 5/31/2013: Attorney Nathan 

Alexander Wersal/Class Action 

Justice Institute LLC (Minneapolis, 

MN) files notice of appearance on 

behalf of Appellant Browne 

• 1/17/2013: Objector Andrea Pridham

– filed by Grenville Thomas 

Pridham/Law Office of Grenville 

Pridham (Tustin, CA); Christopher 

V. Langone/ Law Office of 

Christopher Langone (Ithaca, NY)

• Appeal No. 13-55118—pending

• 2/28/2013: Appeal No. 13-

55119—dismissed for failure to 

pay docketing/filing fee

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond
74 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

• 1/17/2013: Objectors Chris Brown and 

Maggie Strohlein

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 1/17/2013: Objector Sean Hull

– filed pro se

– 2/8/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 13-55128 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Sean Hull by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• Appeal No. 13-55120—pending

• Appeal No. 13-55128—pending

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost

bond

Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., No. 3:11-cv02039 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011). 

• 3 Objections Submitted360

• 10/31/2012: Final Judgment and 

Order granting Motion for 

approval of Class Action 

Settlement, awarding Class 

Counsel fees and expenses, 

awarding Class Representatives 

incentives, permanently 

enjoining parallel proceedings, 

and dismissing action with 

prejudice.361

3 Appeals Filed:

• 11/14/2012: Objectors David Johnson 

and Maria Carapia

– filed by Joseph Darrell Palmer/ Law 

Offices of Darrell Palmer (Solana 

Beach, CA)

• 11/15/2012: Objector Henry Gonzalez

– filed by Scott J. Ferrell/ Newport 

Trial Group (Newport Beach, CA)

• 11/29/2012: Objector Israel Elizondo

– filed pro se

– 1/7/2013: notice of appearance in 

Appeal No. 12-57184 filed on behalf 

of Appellant Elizondo by 

Christopher Andreas Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 6/11/2013: Appeal No. 12-

57074—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute362

• Appeal No. 12-57081—

pending363

• 6/3/2013: Appeal No. 12-

57184—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute364

• 12/20/2012: Pursuant 

to the court’s orders in 

the Final Judgment, 

Settling Plaintiffs and 

Defendant jointly 

requested the court to 

order Objectors to post 

an appeal bond in the 

amount of 

$235,500.66365

• 6/6/2013: Court 

ordered appealing 

Objectors to 

collectively post an 

appeal bond of $5,000 

no later than July 19, 

2013 or file a notice of 

dismissal366

• See above

• See above
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 75

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Foos v. Ann, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-02794 

(S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011)

• 1 Objection Submitted367

• 12/10/2012: Order granting 

Motion for Final Approval of 

Class Settlement and granting in 

part Motion for Attorneys' 

Fees.368

1 Appeal Filed:

• 1/9/2013: Objector Sarah McDonald

– filed by John W. Davis/ Law Office of 

John W. Davis (San Diego, CA)

• Appeal No. 13-55059—

pending369

• 1/22/2013: Plaintiff asks 

court to enter an Order 

requiring Objector 

McDonald and/or her 

counsel to post a $5,000 

appellate bond370

• 5/20/2013: Court 

ordered Objector Sarah 

McDonald to post a 

$1,000 bond or file a 

notice of dismissal of her 

appeal within 10 days371

District of Idaho: 0 objector appeals

District of Montana: 0 objector appeals 

District of Nevada: 1 objector appeal

International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension 

Fund v. International Game 

Technology, No. 3:09-cv-00419 (D. 

Nev. July 30, 2009)

• 1 Objection Submitted

• 10/19/2012: Final Judgment and 

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice 

granting (1) motions for final 

approval of the securities class 

action settlement; (2) approval of 

plan of allocation for settlement 

proceeds; (3) application for 

attorneys’ fees and expenses and 

Plaintiffs’ expenses.372

1 Appeal Filed:

• 11/16/2012: Objector Ian Kideys

– filed pro se

• 4/5/2013: Appeal No. 12-

17602—dismissed for failure to 

prosecute373

• No motion for cost 

bond

District of Oregon: 0 objector appeals

Eastern District of Washington: 0 objector appeals
76 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Western District of Washington: 11 objector appeals

In re: General Motors Corporation 

Speedometer Products Liability 

Litigation, MDL No. 1896, No. 

2:07-cv-00291 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 

23, 2007).

• MDL

• 32 Objections Submitted374

• 11/7/2008: Order and Final 

Judgment granting motion for 

final approval of class action 

settlement; motion for attorney 

fees and costs; and dismissing 

claims with prejudice.375

2 Appeals Filed:

• 12/1/2008: Objector Clyde Farrel 

Padgett

– filed pro se

• 12/8/2008: Objectors William P. Jehle 

and Tom Richeson

– filed by attorneys Kearney Dee 

Hutsler & Richard G. Baker/ The 

Hutsler Law Firm (Birmingham 

Alabama)376

• 3/2/2009: Appeal No. 08-

36005—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties377

• 3/2/2009: Appeal No. 08-

36028—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties378

• 12/5/2008: Plaintiffs 

filed a motion for 

Objector Padgett to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $40,811.20 

within 2 weeks of the

court order

• 12/11/2008: Plaintiffs 

filed an amended 

motion for each 

objector filing an

appeal in the case to be 

jointly and severally 

liable for an appellate 

cost bond of 

$40,811.20 within 2 

weeks of the court 

order379

• 1/15/2009: the 

Objectors were held 

jointly and severally 

responsible to post a

$1,000 appeal bond 

within 2 weeks of the 

Order380

Shin v. Esurance Inc., No. 3:08-cv05626 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 15, 2008)

• 1 Objection Submitted381

• 1/29/2010, vacated and reentered, 04/02/2010: Final 

Judgment granting motion for 

final approval of class action 

settlement; motion for attorneys’ 

fees, expenses and incentive 

award; and dismissing claims 

with prejudice.382

1 Appeal Filed:

• 1/29/2010 & Amended 4/22/2010:383

Objector Su Shin

– filed by Attorney Alana K. Bullis/Law 

Offices of Alana K. Bullis, PLLC 

(DuPont, WA)

• 5/24/2010: Appeal No. 10-

35113—voluntarily dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b) stipulation of the 

parties384

• No motion for cost 

bond
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 77

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

In re Classmates.com Consolidated 

Litigation, No. 2:09-cv-00045 

(W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009).

• Consolidated Class Action 

• 370 Objections Submitted385

• 06/15/2012: Order granting 

(1) motion for final approval of 

class action settlement; 

(2) motion for attorney fees, 

costs, and participation awards to 

class representatives; and 

(3) Order certifying settlement 

class; and (4) Judgment 

dismissing the case and entering 

the two year injunction.386

3 Appeals Filed:387

• 7/12/2012: Objector Michael J Schulz

– notice of appeal filed pro se

– on 8/14/12 Christopher A. Bandas 

filed a notice of appearance to serve as 

counsel on behalf of ObjectorAppellant Schulz/Bandas Law Firm, 

P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 7/13/2012: Objector Brent Clifton

– original Notice of Appeal filed by 

Gary Sibley/The Sibley Firm (Dallas, 

TX)

– amended notice of appeal filed on 

7/18/2012 by Objector Clifton pro se

• 7/16/2012: Objector Christopher 

Langone

– filed by Christina Henry/Seattle Debt 

Law, LLC (Seattle/ Washington)

• 8/27/2012: Appeal No. 12-

35593—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion388

• 8/28/2012: Appeal No. 12-

35604—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion389

• 8/27/2012: Appeal No. 12-

35595—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion390

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

• No motion for cost 

bond

Palmer v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 

2:09-cv-01211 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 

25, 2009)

• 2 Objections Submitted391

• 10/21/2011: Judgment and Order 

granting final approval of class 

action settlement and motion for 

attorney fees, costs and incentive 

award.392

1 Appeal Filed:

• 11/28/2011: Objector Ricardo H. 

Nigaglioni393

– filed pro se

• 2/14/2013: Appeal No. 11-

35991—judgment of the district 

court affirmed per unpublished 

opinion394

• No motion for cost 

bond

Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 2:10-

cv-198 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2010).

• 26 Objections Submitted395

• 9/17/2012: Order and Final 

Judgment granting (1) motion 

for final approval of amended 

class action settlement; and 

(2) motion for attorney fees, 

costs and service awards.396

1 Appeal Filed:

• 10/17/2012: Objectors Sara Sibley and 

Judith Brown

– filed by Attorney Thomas L. Cox, Jr./ 

(Dallas, TX)397

• 12/5/2012: Appeal No. 12-

35860—voluntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion398

• 10/25/2012: Class 

Plaintiffs filed a motion 

to require Objectors to 

post an appeal bond of 

$189,344399

• 12/4/2012: Class 

Plaintiffs withdrew 

their pending motion 

for an appeal bond in 

response to Objectors’

motion to voluntarily 

dismiss their appeal 

pursuant to FRAP 

42(b).
78 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 

2:10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 

15, 2010)400

• 8 Objections Submitted401

• 12/20/2012: Settlement Order 

and Final Judgment granting 

motion for final approval of class 

action settlement.402

• 5/3/2013: Order granting motion 

for attorneys’ fees and 

expenses.403

 

2 Appeals Filed:

• 1/18/2013: Objectors Mr. Gordon 

Morgan and Mr. Jeremy De La Garza 

appealed the Settlement Order (filed 

12/20/2012)

– filed by Christopher Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 6/3/2013: Objectors Mr. Gordon 

Morgan and Mr. Jeremy De La Garza 

appealed the Order Granting Motion for 

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (filed 

5/3/2013)

– filed by Christopher Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, TX)

• 4/22/2013: Appeal No. 13-

35038—Judgment of the district 

court affirmed per summary 

order404

• Appeal No. 13-35491—

pending405

• 2/20/2013: Plaintiffs

filed a motion 

requesting that the 

Court order Objectors, 

jointly and severally, to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $41,150406

• 3/11/2013: Court 

ordered Objectors 

Morgan and De La 

Garza to either post a 

bond in the amount of 

$41,150 or dismiss 

their notice of appeal407

• 6/3/2013: With respect

to Objector’s second 

appeal, Plaintiffs filed a 

similar motion 

requesting that the 

Court order Objectors, 

jointly and severally, to 

post an appellate cost 

bond of $41,150408

• 7/9/2013: Finding that

the same arguments 

applied and that 

$41,150 is again an 

appropriate amount, 

the Court ordered 

Objectors Morgan and 

De La Garza to either 

post the bond or 

withdraw their appeal 

within 5 days of the 

date of the order. 

Failure to comply 

would result in 

Objectors and 

Objectors’ counsel held 

subject to sanctions by 

the court409
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 79

Class Action Objector Appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

from Cases Filed Between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2013145

(not including appeals, if any, originating from the districts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

108 Total Objector Appeals Filed

District Court

• MDL/Consolidated Class 

Action 

• # Objections Submitted 

• Date Final Approval of Class 

Action Settlement Granted

Appellate Court

• # Appeals Filed by Objector(s)

• Date Notice of Appeal(s) Filed

• Identity of Filing Objector(s) & 

Attorney(s) (if any) 

Final Disposition of 

Objector Appeal(s)

• Date & Nature of Final 

Disposition

• Indicate if Appeal is 

“pending”

FRAP 7 Cost Bond 

• Motion Filed

• Disposition of 

Motion

• Amount Imposed (if 

granted)

Herfert v. Crayola, LLC, No. 2:11-

cv-01301 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 

2011)

• 1 Objection Submitted410

• 4/27/2012: Final Order granting 

joint motion for final approval of 

class action settlement and 

motion for attorney fees, 

expenses and representative 

plaintiff award.411

1 Appeal Filed:

• 5/14/2012: Objector Amber Pederson

– filed pro se 

– on 5/24/2012, Class Counsel was 

informed that Objector-Appellant 

Pederson would be represented by 

Mr. Christopher Bandas/ Bandas 

Law Firm, P.C. (Corpus Christi, 

TX)412

– on 7/5/2012, attorney Darrell 

Palmer/Law Offices of Darrell 

Palmer (Solano Beach CA) filed 

Objector-Appellant’s Response to the 

Parties’ Motion for an appeal bond, 

and filed an application to appear pro 

hac vice on behalf of ObjectorAppellant Amber Pederson.

413 Mr. 

Palmer’s application was denied on 

8/17/2012.414

• 9/26/2012: Appeal No. 12-

35393—voluntarily dismissed415

pursuant to Objector’s FRAP 

42(b) motion416

• 6/21/2012: Class 

Plaintiffs and 

Defendants filed a joint 

motion requesting that 

Objector Pederson and 

her counsel, Mr. 

Bandas, be jointly and 

severally liable to post 

an appeal bond of 

$20,000417

• 7/31/2012: Following 

oralargument at which 

neither ObjectorAppellant nor her 

counsel appeared, 

Court granted the 

parties’ joint motion 

and ordered Appellant 

Pederson and her 

attorney Christopher 

Bandas to file an appeal 

bond of $20,000418

• 8/10/2012: Court 

amended its 7/31/2012 

order to require that 

the appeal bond be 

filed no later than 

August 31, 2012419

145. Includes class action objector appeals from class action cases that were filed in the district courts on or after January 1, 2008 in which 

final approval of a Rule 23-certified class action settlement was granted and appealed from between January 1, 2008, through July 1, 2013. The total 

number of objector appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not include objector appeals, if any, that may have originated from the 

Districts of Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands due to time constraints.

146. Two objections were filed by counsel and 18 objections were submitted pro se. See Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 

and Entry of Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal (Doc. # 199) (filed July 30, 2010) and Settlement Class Representatives’ Response to Objections

(Doc. #207) (filed July 30, 2010). 

147. See In re LifeLock, Inc. Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. MDL 08-1977, 2010 WL 3715138 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2010).

148. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

149. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).
80 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

150. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

151. See Doc. #65 (filed Apr. 30, 2010) & Doc. #80 (filed Aug. 31, 2010) (original and resubmitted objections from Objector Figueroa). See

Doc. #86 (filed Sept. 9, 2010) (objections from Objector Maria Fernandez).

152. See Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #93) (filed Sept. 14, 2010). 

153. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

154. See Plaintiffs’ Responses to Objections to Proposed Settlement, Fees and Incentives (Doc. #88) (filed May 23, 2011).

155. See Amended Order by Judge Andrew J. Guilford Granting Final Approval of Class Settlement and Granting Application for Attorney Fees and 

Costs and Incentive Awards (Doc. #104) (filed Aug. 25, 2011).

156. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Objector/ Appellant 

Gaudet’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (denied by the district court Dec. 13, 2011 and denied by the Ninth Circuit on Mar. 13, 2012). The 

district court refused to accept Objector Gaudet’s attempt to post the $1,000 FRAP 7 bond on April 12, 2012 (more than 3 months past the deadline 

set in the court’s Dec. 5, 2011 Order) (Doc. #122, Minute Order of 04/12/2012). On June 13, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied appellees’ motion to 

dismiss, and ordered Appellant Gaudet to post the $1,000 bond and the district court to accept it if it was posted within 21 days. Appellant Gaudet 

complied. See Order, No. 11-56609 (9th Cir. June 13, 2012)(Doc. #17). On July 26, 2012, Attorney Michael Brown files a notice of appearance for 

Appellant Gaudet, and after two telephonic mediation conferences, Gaudet files a motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

on Sept. 14, 2012.

157. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; appellant’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

158. See Class Counsel’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Requiring Objector/Appellant Robert Gaudet To Post Bond Pursuant To 

F.R.A.P. 7 (Doc. #111) (filed Nov. 7, 2011)(class counsel estimates that if the appeal is fully briefed by all sides then appellees will incur at least 

$20,000 in recoverable costs, including the costs of preparing copies of briefs and excerpts of record).

159. See Order Setting Bond at $1,000 (Doc. #116) (filed Dec. 5, 2011) (Court found that $1,000 was a reasonable amount to cover anticipated 

copying costs given Objector’s financial status). The Court denied Objector Gaudet’s motion to sanction and remove Plaintiff’s counsel from his 

role as class counsel.

160. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to the Proposed Settlement (Doc. #39) (filed Dec. 14, 2009).

161. See Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #49) (filed Jan. 4, 2010).

162. See Lane v. Facebook, Inc., No. 08-3845, 2010 WL 2076916 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2010).

163. See Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2011). On appeal, Objector/appellant McKinney through his counsel 

Theodore Frank raised the same objections pertaining to the Settlements cy pres distributions that were overruled in the district court. The Court 

concluded that the cy pres distributions approved by the district court as part of the overall settlement approval did not meet with cy pres standards 

as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit because the donations were made on behalf of a nationwide plaintiff class, thus the district court abused its 

discretion approving cy pres awards that would be distributed to geographically isolated and substantively unrelated charities. Id. On July 31, 2013, 

Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of a revised class action settlement scheduled to be heard on August 26, 2013. See Doc. #66 

(filed July 31, 2013).

164. The Court consolidated three pending class actions against Defendants for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 42: (a) Stern v. AT&T Mobility Corp. f/k/a Cingular Wireless Corp., Case No. 05-8842 (“Stern I”); (b) Lozano v. New Cingular Wireless 

f/k/a AT&T Wireless Corp., Case No. 02-00090 (“Lozano”); and (c) Stern v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc. f/k/a AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., Case 

No. 09-1112 (“Stern II”). Stern I was designated as the lead case, and the Court clarified that it would enter separate preliminary approval orders and 

final judgments in each of the three consolidated cases. See Doc. #25 (filed Apr. 13, 2010).

165. See Order Granting Final Approval to the UCC Settlement and Entering Final Judgment (Doc. #81) (filed No. 22, 2010). Although the court 

found that four objectors were not members of the UCC Settlement Class and, thus, lacked standing to object to the UCC Settlement, the Court 

addressed all 9 objections specifically stating the reasons for overruling each objection. Id. 

166. See Order Granting Final Approval to the UCC Settlement and Entering Final Judgment (Doc. #81) (filed No. 22, 2010). See Order Granting 

Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses to Class Counsel and Incentive Awards For Class Representatives (Doc. #80) 

(filed Nov. 22, 2010). 

167. Appellants’ opposed motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 10-56929 and 10-57062 was granted on Aug. 5, 2011. Order, Nos. 10-56929, 10-

57062 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2011) (Doc. #20).

168. See Stern v. Gambello, Nos. 10-56929, 10-57062, 2012 WL 1744453 (9th Cir. May 17, 2012) (Rejecting Objector/Appellants argument that 

the district court did not adequately scrutinize either the proposed settlement or the fee petition, the court found that the district court’s decision to 

approve the settlement, the claims procedure, and its decision to decline a more intensive inquiry before granted the requested fees and expenses 

was not a clear abuse of discretion.) On May 25, 2012, the Court granted Objector/Appellant Lynch’s motion to extend time to file a petition for 

rehearing or rehearing en banc until June 7, 2012. Order, Nos. 10-56929, 10-57062 (9th Cir. May 25, 2012)(Doc. #73). It appears that Appellant 

Lynch chose not to file a petition for rehearing as on June 19, 2012 the mandate was issued as to the courts May 17, 2012 decision affirming the 

district court. 

169. See supra note 168.

170. See Plaintiff’s Response to Objections to Class Action Settlement (Doc. #81) (filed Aug. 22, 2011).

171. See Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Judgment (Doc. #89) (filed Sept. 15, 2011). 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 81

172. Objector Edmund F. Bandas’ original objection letter dated Aug. 4, 2011 was originally received by the Court on August 5, 2011, but was 

rejected as an inappropriate communication pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.11 and returned to counsel. On October 18, 2011, Edmund Bandas 

submitted a letter seeking to reinstate his objection to the class action settlement. The Court ordered the Clerk to file Class member Bandas’ 

objection, but it went on to conclude that the objection would not have altered the Court’s decision to grant final approval of the settlement. See

Doc. #98 (filed Oct. 18, 2011). 

173. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; Appellant Denny’s motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

174. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; notice of appearance of Attorney Christopher Bandas for Appellants Michelle Melton and Edmund F. Bandas; Appellant’s joint 

motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

175. See Response by Plaintiff to Objections to Approval of Settlement, Certification of Class, and Application for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. #62) (filed 

Nov. 15, 2011).

176. See Final Approval Order (Doc. #65) (filed Nov. 22, 2011).

177. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties stipulated motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

178. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties stipulated motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

179. See Lead Plaintiff’s Supplemental Submission in Response to the Court’s March 4, 2013 Order and in Further Support of the Proposed 

Settlement (Doc. #310) (filed Mar. 7, 2013).

180. See Docs. #322 (Order Approving Plan of Allocation), 323 (Final Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice) & 324 (Order granting Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses) (filed Mar. 15, 2013).

181. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Objector/Appellant 

Hayes’ motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). 

182. See Memorandum & Order Regarding Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Plaintiff 

Service Award (Doc. #23) (filed Mar. 20, 2012).

183. See Memorandum and Order Regarding Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and 

Plaintiff Service Award (Doc. #23)(filed Mar. 20, 2012).

184. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: parties’ stipulated 

motion to dismiss case voluntarily with prejudice pursuant to FRAP 42(b). 

185. Purchaser class plaintiffs reported that only five total objections to the settlement were filed and one had already been resolved. See 

Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. #3121) (filed Aug. 14, 2009).

186. See Doc. #3206 (filed Sept. 28, 2009) & Doc. #3222 (filed Oct. 9, 2009). MDL 1699 was assigned to the N.D. Cal in September 2005. Prior 

to this September 2009 settlement of the purchaser claim class actions from which objectors appealed, Defendant Pfizer Inc. had resolved thousands 

of product liability cases. After the settlement of the purchaser claim class actions, a number of product liability cases remained for resolution and 

the docket remained active up until March 2013. After dismissal of the final product liability plaintiff from the proceedings, Judge Breyer 

recommended to the JPML that MDL 1699 be terminated. See Order Recommending Termination of Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding to Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. #3640) (filed Mar. 29, 2013).

187. Ten days after filing their notice of appeal, Objectors/Appellants Barbara Hurst and Diane Gibson were notified per Order from the 

Clerk of the Ninth Circuit that they had 21 days to either dismiss their appeal (since the district courts’ orders from which they appealed did not 

dispose of the case as to all claims and all parties) or show cause as to why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Order, 

No. 09-17284 (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 2009) (Doc. #5) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1981)). Noncompliance 

would result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Appellants filed their stipulated motion to dismiss the case on Nov. 11, 

2009.

188. Ten days after filing their notice of appeal, Objectors/Appellants Janice Johnson and Wilma Thompson were notified per Order from the 

Clerk of the Ninth Circuit that they had 21 days to either dismiss their appeal (since the district courts’ orders from which they appealed did not 

dispose of the case as to all claims and all parties) or show cause as to why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Order, 

No. 09-17420 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2009) (Doc. #2) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221 (9th Cir. 1981). Noncompliance 

would result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Appellants filed their stipulated motion to dismiss the case on Nov. 11, 

2009.

189. See Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and Settling States’ Joint Response to Objections to Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental 

Entity Settlements (Doc. #5601) (filed May 4, 2012) (describing the 18 objections brought by 28 objectors).

190. See Order Granting Final Approval Of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental Entity Settlements; Final Judgment of Dismissal 

With Prejudice (Doc. #6130) (filed July 11, 2012).

191. See Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and Settling States’ Joint Response to Objections to Combined Class, Parens Patriae, and Governmental 

Entity Settlements With AUO, LG Display and Toshiba Defendants (Doc. #7162) (filed Nov. 15, 2012) (describing the 11 documents that could be 

construed as objections, noting that three of the four objectors represented in the single objection submitted by Attorney George W. Cochran have 

formally withdrawn their objections).

192. See In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL 1827, 3:07-md-1827, 2013 WL 1319653 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2013).
82 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

193. See Amended Order Granting Final Approval of Combined Class, Parens Patriae, And Governmental Entity Settlements with AUO, LG 

Display, And Toshiba Defendants; Ordering Final Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice; Award of Attorneys Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards (Doc. 

#7688) (filed Apr. 1, 2013).

194. See Final Judgment Re Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff/State Entity Class Actions (Doc. #7690) (filed Apr. 1, 2013).

195. See In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL 1827, 3:07-md-1827, 2013 WL 1365900 ( N.D. Cal., April 03, 2013).

196. See Order Re Civil Contempt and Award of Sanctions Against Objectors Alison Paul, Leveta Chesser, and Their Counsel Joseph Darrell Palmer

(Doc. #7618) (filed Feb. 19, 2013) for a detailed history of the events that led up to the Court’s decision to hold Objector Alison Paul (Attorney 

Palmer’s wife), Objector Leveta Chesser (Attorney Palmer’s aunt) and Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer in contempt for failure to comply with the 

courts’ orders to appear for a deposition. Although the Court declined to strike the objections of Paul and Chesser, the court awarded monetary 

sanctions to compensate Plaintiffs’ class counsel for fees incurred pursuing the depositions in the amount of $9,254.11. Id. Objectors Paul and 

Chesser and their counsel Palmer appealed from the Order of Civil Contempt. Appeal No. 13-15365 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2013). Appeal No. 13-15365

was dismissed for failure to prosecute on July 5, 2013, but reinstated on Aug. 13, 2013 and Appellants opening brief was filed the same day. See 

Order, No. 13-15365 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2013) (Doc. #14).

197. On April 12, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs/Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment stating 

that “the arguments raised in the opening brief are sufficiently substantive as to warrant further consideration by a merits panel.” See Order, No. 12-

16830 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2013) (Doc. #49). In addition, appellees’ motion to designate the appeal as frivolous and their motion for damages was 

referred to the assigned merits panel for whatever consideration the panel deems appropriate. Id.

198. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Christopher V. Langone for Appellant Andrea Kane; Required Mediation Questionnaire; appellant’s motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant 

to FRAP 42(b) (denied). On January 9, 2013, Objector/Appellant filed a motion to dismiss her appeal voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b) and an 

alternative motion to remand to which Plaintiffs objected. On March 1, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied appellant’s motion to dismiss without 

prejudice and appellant’s alternative motion to remand. Objector/Appellant Kane was given 21 days to either file a renewed motion to dismiss the 

appeal voluntarily with prejudice or file her opening brief by April 1, 2013. See Order, No. 12-16839 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013) (Doc. #34). On June 28, 

2013, noting that Appellant Kane did not file an opening brief, Appeal No. 12-16839 was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Order, No. 12-16839 

(9th Cir. June 28, 2013) (Doc. #37).

199. Attorney Bandas filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Objector/Appellant Conner on Sept. 10, 2012 in Appeal No. 12-16780. On 

Dec. 5, 2012, the Court granted Attorney Bandas’ motion on behalf of Objector/Appellant Conner to consolidate appeals Nos. 12-16780, 12-16782, 

and 12-16788. On March 1, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied appellants’ motion to remand and motion for sanctions under 28 USC 1927. See Order,

Nos. 12-16780, 12-16782, and 12-16788 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013) (Doc. #27). Plaintiffs/Appellees motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and for 

determination of frivolous appeal was denied. Id. Appellants submitted their opening briefs on April 1, 2013.

200. Attorney Bandas filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Objector/Appellant Luis Santana on Sept. 10, 2012 in Appeal No. 12-16782. 

On Dec. 5, 2012, the Court granted Attorney Bandas’ motion on behalf of Objector/Appellant Santana to consolidate appeals Nos. 12-16780, 12-

16782, and 12-16788. On March 1, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied appellants’ motion to remand and motion for sanctions under 28 USC 1927. See 

Order, Nos. 12-16780, 12-16782, and 12-16788 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)(Doc. #27).Plaintiffs/Appellees motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and 

for determination of frivolous appeal was denied. Id. Appellants submitted their opening briefs on April 1, 2013.

201. Attorney Bandas filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Objector/Appellant Stefan Rest on Sept. 10, 2012 in Appeal No. 12-16788. 

On Dec. 5, 2012, the Court granted Attorney Bandas’ motion on behalf of Objector/Appellant Rest to consolidate appeals Nos. 12-16780, 12-16782, 

and 12-16788. On March 1, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied appellants’ motion to remand and motion for sanctions under 28 USC 1927. See Order,

Nos. 12-16780, 12-16782, and 12-16788 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013) (Doc. #27). Plaintiffs/Appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and for 

determination of frivolous appeal was denied. Id. Appellants submitted their opening briefs on April 1, 2013.

202. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Objectors were 

notified on June 13, 2013 of their failure to file the Mediation Questionnaire as required under circuit rules; they were given 7 days to either file the 

Questionnaire, a motion to dismiss the appeal voluntarily under FRAP 42(b), or show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed. See Order,

No. 13-15929 (9th Cir. June 12, 2013)(Doc. #5). On July 2, 2013, Objectors/Appellants were given an additional 7 days to comply. Finding 

continued failure to comply with the courts orders, Appeal No. 13-15929 was dismissed on July 12, 2013 for failure to prosecute. See Order, No. 13-

15929 (9th Cir. July 12, 2013)(Doc. #8).

203. Sean Hull filed his original objection as a Pro Se Objector from Denver, Colorado where he lives and works, although Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs submitted evidence that his objection letter was postmarked in Corpus Christi, Texas and mailed by attorney Christopher Bandas. See 

Decl. of Mario N. Alioto (Doc. #1062-1, Ex. 1) (filed Mar. 1, 2012). Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their attempts to ascertain 

whether Mr. Hull was a member of the settlement class with standing to object to the settlement prior to the final approval hearing. (Doc. #1062) 

(filed Mar. 1, 2012) & (Doc. 1116) (filed Mar. 27, 2012). In addition to finding that his objection was without merit, Judge Samuel Conti overruled 

Mr. Hall’s objection “on the grounds that the objector has failed to submit proof or otherwise establish that he is a member of the Class, and 

therefore lacks standing to challenge the Settlement.” See Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement with Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (Doc. 

#1103) (filed Mar. 22, 2012). 

204. See Docs. # 1105, 1106 (filed Mar. 22, 2012). Following the initial settlement between Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and defendant 

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., five additional settlements have been approved between a class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and named defendants, 

most recently being the settlement between Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Toshiba defendants. See Order granting Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement with Toshiba (Doc. #1791) (filed July 23, 2013). To date, there have been no objector appeals resulting from these settlements. Litigation 

continues in MDL 1917 and the issue of attorney fees will not arise until all remaining claims have been addressed. 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 83

205. Citing the Court’s continuing jurisdiction under the Final Judgment entered on March 22, 2012 in conjunction with the Order granting 

final approval of the settlement with Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Judge Conti granted the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

discovery and ordered objector Hull to appear for a deposition and produce requested documents by May 11, 2012. See Order Granting Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery From Objector (Doc. # 1155) (filed Apr. 16, 2012). Judge Conti concluded that because the requests 

for documents and information sought by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs focused “solely on the objector’s standing, the bases for his current 

objections, his role in objecting to this and other class settlements, and his relationships with the counsel that are believed to be behind the scenes 

manipulating him,” the requested information and documents are relevant, needed and reasonably narrowly tailored. Id. In response to Objector 

Hull’s refusal to appear for a deposition or produce documents by the Court’s May 11, 2012 deadline and failure to provide any valid reason or 

justification for not doing so, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to order Hull to show cause why he should not be 

found in civil contempt and sanctioned in the amount of $5,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,166.95 in costs for his failure to comply with the Court’s 

direct order. (Doc. #1199) (filed May 18, 2012). On May 25, 2012, Special Master Legge granted the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion and 

ordered Objector Hull to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s order compelling his deposition and response 

to discovery documents (Doc. #1210) (filed May 25, 2012). On June 1, 2012, Joseph Darrell Palmer entered his appearance as counsel on behalf of 

Objector Sean Hull (Doc.#1222) (filed June 1, 2012), and filed a Response to Plaintiffs motion for contempt arguing that plaintiffs’ motion should 

be denied, the order for a deposition should be vacated as without jurisdiction and moot, and sanctions should be denied in their entirety. (Doc. 

#1223) (filed June 1, 2012). On June 20, 2012, Special Master Legge filed his Proposed Order Finding Objector Sean Hull in Civil Contempt and 

Awarding Sanctions to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. (Doc. #1234) (filed June 20, 2012). However, it appears that before Judge Conti either adopted 

or rejected Special Master Legge’s Proposed Order, Objector/Appellant Hull voluntarily dismissed his appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) on August 9, 

2012.

206. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Joseph Darrell Palmer for Appellant Sean Hull; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

207. The sole objector National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund (“NASI”) represented by attorney Irwin Schwartz only objected 

to the attorneys fee award as presented in the Settlement Notice. Objectors supported the settlement and plan of allocation. Following the 

September 27, 2010, hearing on Final Approval of Class Settlement. the Court concluded that a supplemental hearing on the Application for 

Attorney Fees warranted in light of a recent Ninth Circuit’s decision. A Supplemental Final Settlement Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Application for 

Attorney Fees was set for November 1, 2010, and additional objections could be filed up until October 26, 2010. Objector NASI remaining the only 

objector to the fee award, filed a supplemental objection and response which were overruled by the court’s Order Granting Lead Plaintiffs Motion 

for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. (Doc. # 312) (filed Nov. 1, 2010). 

208. See Docs. #293 & 294 (filed Sept. 29, 2010).

209. See Doc. #312 (filed Nov. 1, 2010).

210. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Prior to dismissing its appeal, Objector Pension Fund also withdrew its motion 

for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). (Doc. #320) (filed Dec. 21, 2010).

211. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections to Class Counsel Settlement (Doc. #421) (filed Jan. 3, 2013) (describing the 9 objections; two 

additional objections were submitted 14 days past the deadline). Class plaintiffs were given an additional 30 day period to submit objections to 

Plaintiffs’ modified plan of distribution of the settlement funds. Three objectors filed renewed objections during this period. See Status Report (Doc. 

#462)(filed May 20, 2013).

212. See Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #465) (filed May 30, 2013).

213. See Order (Doc. #467) (filed June 19, 2013).

214. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; objector/appellant’s stipulated motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

215. See Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order Thereon (Doc. #118) (filed Mar. 3, 2010).

216. See Lane v. Facebook, Inc., No. 08-3845, 2010 WL 9013059 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010).

217. See Lane v. Facebook, Inc., No. 08-3845, 2010 WL 2076916 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2010).

218. Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the parties’ 

$9.5 million settlement agreement as “fair, reasonable and adequate” finding the settlement amount was not too low and not disqualified because a 

Facebook employee sits on the board of the organization distributing cy pres funds). Objector/appellant McCall’s Petition for rehearing en banc and 

Objectors Marek and Trotter’s petition for rehearing were denied. Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013). Objectors’ petition for 

certiorari was recently granted on July 31, 2013. Marek v. Lane, et al., (U.S. July 31, 2013) (No. 13-136). 

219. See supra note 218. 

220. Although 50 objections appear to have been timely filed objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement or the fees and expenses 

requested by class counsel, the court reports in order granting final approval that only 27 objections were filed by members of the Settlement Class 

as defined in the Notice. (Doc. #319) (filed Dec. 20, 2010) Thus only 27 objectors had standing to object to the settlement. See also Pls. Reply Mem. 

in Supp. of Mot. for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. #302) (filed Dec. 6, 2010).

221. See Docs. #319, 320 (filed Dec. 20, 2010).

222. The Ninth Circuit sua sponte consolidated Appeal Nos. 11-15182, 11-15186, 11-15190, 11-15191, and 11-15192 on Feb. 1, 2011. 

223. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motions to extend time to file opening brief and record on appeal(granted); motion to supplement the record on appeal (denied); motion to 
84 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

file opening brief and certain excerpts of record under seal(granted); opening brief filed; response to appellees’ motion to strike; motion for 

extension of time to file reply brief (granted); motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). 

224. Oral argument was held in San Francisco on August 13, 2013 for consolidated appeals 11-15186, 11-15190, 11-15191, 11-15192.

225. Oral argument was held in San Francisco on August 13, 2013 for consolidated appeals 11-15186, 11-15190, 11-15191, 11-15192.

226. Oral argument was held in San Francisco on August 13, 2013 for consolidated appeals 11-15186, 11-15190, 11-15191, 11-15192.

227. Oral argument was held in San Francisco on August 13, 2013 for consolidated appeals 11-15186, 11-15190, 11-15191, 11-15192.

228. Although 9th Circuit Objector Appeal No. 10-15871 listed here resulted from the final approval of the settlement of surface flaking 

claims by plaintiffs in Ross v. Trex Company, Inc., No. 3:09-670 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2009), the settlement also consolidated Ross with Okano v. Trex 

Company, Inc., No. 09-1878 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2009) for purposes of pursuing mold claims against Defendant Trex. See Order (Doc. # 152) (filed 

Mar. 16, 2010). Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide class filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement of their mold claims against 

Defendant Trex on April 5, 2013, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 23, 2013. (Doc. # 258) (filed Apr. 5, 2013).

229. Preliminary approval of the class action Settlement Agreement between class members and Defendant Trex Co. was granted on July 30, 

2009; the final fairness hearing was held on October 30, 2009. Fifteen objections were submitted prior to the fairness hearing and an additional 3 

objections were submitted afterwards. Despite the fact that four of the 18 total objections were untimely and a fifth suffered from other procedural 

deficiencies, the court considered all of them, addressing the arguments raised prior to overruling all objections and granting final approval, finding 

the settlement to be fair, adequate and free from collusion. See Second Revised Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Dismissing Released 

Claims with Prejudice (Doc. #154)(filed Apr. 7, 2010)(nunc pro tunc to March 15, 2010). 

230. See Doc. #152 (filed Mar. 16, 2010).

231. See Doc. #154 (filed Apr. 7, 2010).

232. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: It appears that the 

parties decided to participate in the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program (facilitates settlement while appeals are pending). On June 30, 2010, the 

parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement and they were ordered to either file a motion or stipulation to dismiss the appeal 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b) or contact the Circuit Mediator within 30 days. Objectors/Appellants filed their stipulated motion to dismiss the case 

voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b) on July 9, 2010, and the court dismissed the appeal on July 12, 2010.

233. Although the court considered all 36 objections, the court pointed out that 5 of the 36 objections were received from individuals who 

also opted out of the settlement which technically mooted their objections as class members who opt out lack standing to object to a settlement. See 

Order (1) Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement etc. (Doc. # 207) (filed May 17, 2011). 

234. See In re Wachovia Corp. “Pick–A–Payment” Mortgage Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 1877630 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2011).

235. An additional appeal was filed by lead plaintiffs Anthony Michaels and David Catapano, appealing on behalf of themselves and the class, 

most likely from the court’s decision to award class counsel only $800,000 of the $1.05 million it requested for attorney fees, and to award class 

representatives Michaels and Catapana only $2,000 of the $5,000 they requested. See Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 226) (filed July 27, 2012). Appeal No. 

12-35631 was dismissed on Aug. 30, 2012, pursuant to appellants’ FRAP 42(b) motion for voluntary dismissal.

236. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to proceed in forma pauperis (denied by the district court Aug. 18, 2011); motion to extend time to file response to appellees motion 

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (granted in part); motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

237. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

238. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

239. Plaintiffs asked the court to require a total appeal bond of $240,000 divided equally among the 2 Objectors ($116,250 each) to ensure 

payment of appellate costs that consisted of: (1) $15,000 per appeal for the expenses incurred opposing these appeals, which are recoverable costs 

under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e); and (2) $101,250 for the interest on the unpaid settlement amount and attorneys’ fees through resolution of the appeals 

(plaintiffs calculated by multiplying the cash component of the settlement amount and the attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court ($75 million) by 

the current applicable interest rate of 0.18% for 18 months, which plaintiffs identified as a conservative estimate of the length of time it will take to 

resolve the appeals.) See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion Requiring Objector-Appellants to Post Appeal Bond

(Doc. # 235, Attach. 1) (filed July 1, 2011).

240. Citing Azizian v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 961 (9th Cir. 2007), the court balanced the appellant’s ability to pay a bond, 

the risk that the appellant would not pay costs if unsuccessful, the merits of the appeal, and whether the appellant has shown bad faith or vexatious 

conduct, and ordered Rose to post an appellate bond in the amount of $15,000 concluding that the “amount is significantly less than the requested 

amount of $ 116,250, but will offer Plaintiffs some assurance that they will recover their costs in the event that Rose’s appeal is unsuccessful.” See 

Order (Doc. #249) (filed Aug. 18, 2011) & Order Setting Deadline for Marcella Rose to Post Appeal Bond (Doc. #252) (filed Aug. 26, 2011). Appeal 

No. 11-16507 was voluntarily dismissed on Aug. 30, 2011 prior to the Sept. 26, 2011 deadline for posting the cost bond.

241. Plaintiffs asked the court to require a total appeal bond of $240,000 divided equally among the 2 Objectors ($116,250 each) to ensure 

payment of appellate costs that consisted of: (1) $15,000 per appeal for the expenses incurred opposing these appeals, which are recoverable costs 

under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e); and (2) $101,250 for the interest on the unpaid settlement amount and attorneys’ fees through resolution of the appeals 

(plaintiffs calculated by multiplying the cash component of the settlement amount and the attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court ($75 million) by 

the current applicable interest rate of 0.18% for 18 months, which plaintiffs identified as a conservative estimate of the length of time it will take to 

resolve the appeals.) See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion Requiring Objector-Appellants to Post Appeal Bond

(Doc. # 235, Attach. 1) (filed July 1, 2011). Although Objectors Attorney Darrell Palmer filed an 11-page Response to Plaintiff’s motion arguing that 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 85

it should be overruled or the bond should only be set for $1,000, Appeal No. 11-16513 was voluntarily dismissed on July 21, 2011 prior to the 

court’s ruling on the Plaintiffs’ cost bond motion. See Response Objectors Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #239) (filed July 

15, 2011).

242. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Response to Objections to Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Request for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #205) 

(filed Mar. 7, 2011) (plaintiffs argue that the objections asserted on behalf of four class members by three well known professional objectors—

Attorneys Howard Strong, Joseph Darrell Palmer, and Charles Chalmers—should be overruled because they have all been rejected by other courts 

including the district court for the N.D. Cal). 

243. See Doc. #216 (filed Apr. 1, 2011).

244. On April 1, 2011, the Court granted Final Approval of the Settlement, but delayed consideration of Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorney 

Fees until after the May 20, 2011 deadline for filing a claim. On June 7, 2011, a Joint Report in Response to the Court’s Order Re Number of Claims 

was filed by class counsel detailing the number of claims submitted. On June 9, 2011, Attorney Chalmers on behalf of Objector Neil Scheiman 

moved for Leave to File a Response to the Report, which he filed on June 29, 2011. The court overruled Objector Scheiman’s supplemental 

objections and approved Class Counsel’s Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards. (Doc. #232) (filed July 6, 2011).

245. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; late-filed motion for an extension of time to file opening brief (granted); parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant 

to FRAP 42(b).

246. Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. #583)(filed Feb. 28, 2012)(Plaintiffs 

addressed the substance of the twenty-six objections to the proposed Settlement that were timely lodged.) Upon receipt of four additional 

objections, Plaintiffs amended and filed an updated version of a chart that catalogued all of the 30 timely filed objections. (Doc. #590) (filed March 

5, 2012). 

247. See Docs. #607, 608 & 609 (filed Mar. 29, 2012).

248. The Ninth Circuit granted appellees’ motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 12-15705, 12-15889, 12-15957, 12-15996, 12-16010, and 12-

16038 on March 8, 2012. 

249. Response to Objections to Proposed Settlement (Doc. #214) (filed Mar. 7, 2011). 

250. See Doc. #218 (filed Mar. 31, 2011). 

251. See infra note 254 for explanation of a noted discrepancy regarding date of dismissal.

252. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion for an extension of time to file opening brief (granted); amended notice of appeal; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case 

voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

253. Class counsel explained that in accordance with the terms of the judgment and the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator 

would be proceeding with the distribution of the Settlement Fund despite Objector Balla's attempted appeal. Thus, Plaintiffs would seek a bond 

amount only with respect to the more limited costs of appeal recoverable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. Estimating that the costs 

associated with the appellate record, court reporter transcriptions, and printing to be approximately $4,000–$6,000, Plaintiffs chose to request that 

the court set the amount of the appeal bond at the midpoint of the estimated appellate costs or $5,000. See Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. #220) 

(filed Apr. 25, 2011).

254. See Yingling v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:09-1733, 2011 WL 2790181 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2011). It appears that Objector Balla and his attorney Mr. 

Palmer chose not to post the bond, but instead to amend the notice of appeal on August 5, 2011, thus notifying the court of their intention to 

appeal from the courts July 5, 2011 Order requiring the bond. The appellate docket for Appeal No. 11-16033 indicates that Appellant Balla filed a 

stipulated motion to dismiss the appeal voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b) on August 11, 2011. Although the appellate docket appears to indicate 

that the court granted Objector Balla’s FRAP 42(b) motion to dismiss on Aug. 12, 2011, the mandate is not entered on the district court docket until 

September 14, 2011. See Doc. #232 (filed Sept. 14, 2011).

255. Only 2 objections were filed. On Jan. 23, 2012, attorney Sam P. Cannata submitted objections on behalf of his minor children Objectors 

Enzo R. and Mia G. Cannata. (Doc. #199) (filed Jan. 23, 2012). Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer filed objections on behalf of another attorney, 

Objector Christopher Bandas. (Doc. #200) (filed Jan. 23, 2012) In addition to submitting their arguments for why the Palmer/Bandas and Cannata 

Objections should be overruled, Plaintiffs motioned the court to strike the Objection of Mia and Enzo Cannata because since neither of the Cannata 

objectors are purchasers of the computers as required to be members of the class (their objection states they received their computers as gifts), they 

do not have standing to object. See Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum (Doc. #202) (filed Jan. 30, 2012). On Feb. 1, 2012, Samuel Cannata filed a motion 

to withdraw his minor children as objectors and substitute himself, on the ground that he purchased the computers for his children, and thus he 

was the true class member at issue. Doc. #213 (filed Feb. 1, 2012) Although the Court granted Mr. Cannata’s motion to withdraw his children as the 

named Objectors and substitute himself as the Objector of record, the Court found Mr. Cannata’s objections to be without merit, overruled them 

and granted final approval of the settlement. See Order (Doc. #217) (filed Feb. 14, 2012).

256. See Doc. #218 (filed Feb. 14, 2012).

257. After receiving notice on March 28, 2012 that the appeal would be dismissed within 21 days unless the docketing and filing fees were paid 

[Doc. #233 (filed Mar. 23, 2012)], the Ninth Circuit dismissed Objector Bandas’ Appeal No. 12-15555 on April 18, 2012. See Doc. #241 (filed Apr. 

18, 2012). After payment of the docketing fee, Objector Bandas’ Appeal No. 12-15555 was reinstated on June 25, 2012. (Doc. #259) (filed June 25, 

2012).

258. Following the July 31, 2012 Order for Mr. Bandas to post an appeal bond by Aug. 6, 2012, Attorney Palmer and Objector Bandas filed a 

motion to stay (Doc. #267)(filed Aug. 6, 2012) and amended their notice of appeal to include the July 31, 2012 Bond Order (Doc. #268)(filed Aug. 

6, 2012). Judge James Ware denied Palmer/Bandas’ motion to stay, ordering Bandas’ to either post the appellate bond by Aug. 24, 2012 or dismiss 

his appeal with failure to comply possibly resulting in a finding of civil contempt and imposition of sanctions (Doc. #272)(filed Aug. 22, 2012). On 
86 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

Aug. 29, 2012, Judge Ware granted Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions finding that Objector Bandas' failure to comply with the Court's July 31 Order 

and August 22 Order warranted a finding that Objector Bandas was in contempt, and the Court imposed the sanction of striking Objector's 

objection to the Final Settlement “which means that the Objection has no force or effect on the Final Settlement.” See Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., 

No. 09-01808, 2012 WL 3777163 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012). On Sept. 6, 2012, Objector Bandas amended his notice of appeal a second time to add 

the courts Aug. 29, 2012 Contempt Order. See Doc. #276 (filed Sept. 6, 2012). On Sept. 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting Objector 

Bandas to be found in contempt of court a second time and imposition of further sanctions. (Doc. #277) (filed 9/28/2012). On October 1, 2012, a 

hearing on the motion for further sanctions was set for Oct. 26, 2012 in San Francisco. On October 2, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant 

Bandas’ motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). (Doc. #280) (filed Oct. 2, 2012).

259. Although Mr. Cannata was originally counsel to the original Objectors, Sam P. Cannata was substituted as the Objector of record prior 

to final approval of the settlement. See supra note 255.

260. See supra note 258. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: 

Required Mediation Form; Appellant Bandas’ motions to reinstate case after FRAP 42-1 dismissal (second motion granted after payment of fees); 

motion to extend time to file opening brief (granted); amended notice of appeal (first and second); motion to stay lower court action; reply and 

response to appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal following district court’s contempt order; appellant Bandas’ motion to dismiss case voluntarily 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

261. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: late payment of 

docket fee; objector/appellant Cannata’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

262. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #257) (filed June 26, 2012).

263. See Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #265) (filed July 31, 2012). 

264. See Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motions for Discovery and Appeal Bond (Doc. #251) (filed May 4, 2012). Following 

dismissal of Objector Bandas’ appeal, Plaintiffs asked the court to grant its original motion filed on March 23, 2012 to require Objector Cannata to 

post a cost bond in the amount of $346,814.51 or such lesser amount as the Court sees fit. Plaintiffs asserted that an appeal bond in the amount of 

$346,814.51 is necessary to ensure payment of : (1) costs incurred in opposing the appeal ($15,000); administrative costs of keeping in contact with 

claimants about the status of their claim pending appeal ($55,650); and (3) delay damages likely to be awarded to class members on appeal under 28 

U.S.C. 1912 because of delay in distribution of settlement benefits ($276,164.51). Plaintiff’s Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc #232) (filed March 23, 

2012).

265. Although the court found that a bond was warranted, the Court refused to include anticipated damages in the value of a FRAP 7 cost 

bond, thus because Plaintiff only anticipated incurring $70,650 in actual costs, the Court found that a bond of $70,650 was appropriate. See Embry 

v. ACER Am. Corp., No. 09-01808, 2012 WL 2055030 (N.D. Cal. June 05, 2012). It appears that Objector Cannata chose the option of dismissing his 

appeal within the 14-day deadline instead of posting the $70,650 appellate cost bond. (Doc. #254) (filed June 15, 2012).

266. Response in Opposition to Objections to the Proposed Settlement (Doc. #98) (filed Jan 27, 2012).

267. Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement and Release and Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for An Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of 

Expenses and Incentive Awards (Doc. #107) (filed Mar. 8, 2012) (Notice given per Doc. #118 on April 5, 2012); and Judgment (Doc. #110) (filed Apr. 

2, 2012) (Notice given per Doc. #116 on April 4, 2012).

268. The Ninth Circuit granted appellees’ motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 12-15740, 12-15757, 12-15782, and 12-15816 on May 7, 2012. 

269. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: objector/appellant’s 

motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Objector Funk dismissed his appeal and did not post the required appellate cost 

bond.

270. The Ninth Circuit denied Objector/Appellant Gaudet’s motion to stay the district courts’ May 29, 2012 bond order. (Doc. #172)(filed 

June 7, 2012). Objector Gaudet amended his notice of appeal to include the May 29, 2012 Bond Order. (Doc. #164)(filed June 6, 2012). On June 22, 

2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to hold Objector Gaudet in contempt for failing to post a bond by June 8, 2012, not dismissing his appeal, and after 

being served with Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition, Gaudet failed to appear. (Doc. # 179)(filed June 22, 2012). On July 6, 2012, Judge Ware denied 

Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt as premature, but ordered Objector Gaudet to post the required appellate bond on or before July 13, 2012 or 

dismiss his appeal. Furthermore, the court placed Objector Gaudet on notice that failure to immediately comply with the Court’s May 29 Order 

may result in a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of appropriate sanctions. (Doc. #195)(July 6, 2012) On August 1, Plaintiffs renewed 

their motion for contempt, and on August 22, 2012 the Court found that Objector’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 29 Order warranted a 

finding that Objector Gaudet is in contempt, and imposed the sanction of striking his objection to the Final Settlement which means that Objector 

Gaudet’s objection has no force or effect on the final settlement. See In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation, No. 09-01911, 2012 WL 3686783 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012). On August 29, 2012, Objector Gaudet amended his notice of appeal in No. 12-15757 to add the Courts May 29, 2012 

Bond Order and the courts’ August 22, 2012 Contempt Order. (Doc. #206) (filed Aug. 29, 2012). As of August 2013, Objector/Appellant Gaudet has 

filed his opening brief and reply brief in pending appeal No. 12-15757, which remains consolidated with appeal No. 12-15782.

271. Objector Gryphon and her attorney Theodore Frank responded to Plaintiffs’ bond motion by asking the court to deny the motion and 

impose Rule 11 sanctions on Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Doc. #137)(Apr. 30, 2012). After being ordered on May 29, 2012, to post a $15,000 appeal bond

and be available for deposition questioning on the ability to post a larger bond of $25,000, counsel for Objector Gryphon attempted to post a 

$25,000 bond on June 8, 2012 which the Clerk of Court was unable to post because Objector Gryphon was not ordered or granted leave to post a 

bond in that amount. See Doc. #176 (filed June 20, 2012). Objector Gryphon and her counsel were ordered to post the required $15,000 bond on or 

before June 22, 2012 which they did. See Doc. 179 (filed June 22, 2012). In Appeal No. 12-15782, Appellant Gryphon and her counsel filed a motion 

to vacate or modify the district court’s May 29, 2012 Bond Order. Appeal No. 12-15782 (9th Cir. June 8, 2012) (Doc. #16). On Sept. 5, 2012, the 

Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff/Appellees’ motion to dismiss Appeal No. 12-15782, and denied Appellant Gryphon’s motion to vacate the appeal 

bond order without prejudice to renewing the argument in her opening brief. See Order, No. 12-15782 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2012) (Doc. #40). As of 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 87

August 2013, Objector/Appellant Gryphon has filed her opening brief and reply brief in pending appeal No. 12-15782, which remains consolidated 

with appeal No. 12-15757.

272. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

by attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer for Objector Lee, objector/appellant’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

273. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: required Mediation 

Form, objector/appellant’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

274. See Motion for Bond (Doc. #133) (filed Apr. 16, 2012). For each bond request, Plaintiffs’ requested an appeal bond in the amount of 

$200,000 consisting of $25,000 in anticipated taxable costs and $175,000 in anticipated attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs would incur in defending against 

each of the Objectors’ appeals. Plaintiffs also sought an Order granting Plaintiffs limited expedited discovery to establish whether the Objectors’ 

appeals lacked merit, whether each Objector was capable of paying the cost of the requested bond, and whether each Objector would pay the 

appellees’ costs if they lost their appeal. 

275. See Motion for Bond (Doc. #127) (filed Apr. 10, 2012). See supra note 274 for details of bond request.

276. See Motion for Bond (Doc. #132) (filed Apr. 16, 2012). See supra note 274 for details of bond request. Objector Lee filed a motion to stay 

the courts May 29, 2012 bond order on June 7, which the Court denied. (Doc. #174) (filed June 20, 2012). On June 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a 

motion to hold Objector Lee in contempt for failing to post a bond by June 8, 2012, not dismissing his appeal, and after being served with Plaintiffs’ 

notice of deposition, Lee failed to appear. (Doc. # 181) (filed June 22, 2012). On July 6, 2012, Judge Ware denied Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt as 

premature, but ordered Objector Lee to post the required appellate bond on or before July 13, 2012 or dismiss his appeal. Furthermore, the court 

placed Objector Lee on notice that failure to immediately comply with the Court’s May 29 Order may result in a finding of civil contempt and the 

imposition of appropriate sanctions. (Doc. #195) (July 6, 2012) Objector Lee voluntarily dismissed his appeal on July 20, 2012. (Doc. #196) (filed 

July 20, 2012).

277. See Motion for Bond (Doc. #131) (filed Apr. 13, 2012). See supra note 274 for details of bond request. 

278. See In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litig., No, 09-01911, 2012 WL 2339721 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012). Because the Court concluded 

that Objectors were highly unlikely to prevail in their appeals, and because there was a significant risk of non-payment following appeal, the Court 

found that a bond was warranted, but the bond would only be required in an amount sufficient to cover Plaintiffs’ anticipated costs, and not 

Plaintiffs’ projected attorney fees. Thus, on or before June 8, 2012, the Court required each Objector to either post a $15,000 bond or file a notice of 

dismissal of their respective appeals. In addition, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to conduct limited discovery and ordered that on or before 

June 18, 2012, each Objector must be available for one in-person deposition regarding his or her ability to post a bond in the amount of $25,000. 

Upon completion of the depositions, Plaintiffs could file a single supplemental Motion seeking a higher bond per Objector based on financial 

information gathered from the deposition. Id. at *2.

279. Doc. #168 (filed June 13, 2012).

280. Objector Sweeney was also ordered to appear for an in-person deposition regarding her status as a class member on or before July 27, 

2012. (Doc. #194) (filed July 6, 2012). Objector Sweeney voluntarily dismissed her appeal on August 7, 2012. (Doc. #201) (filed Aug. 7, 2012). 

281. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #88-1) (filed Jan. 20, 2012). 

282. See Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc., No. 09-02619, 2012 WL 3945541 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2012). 

283. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; notice of appearance of Christopher A. Bandas for Appellant Walsh on Nov. 27, 2012. Objector/Appellant failed to file his opening 

brief by April 5, 2013 as required, and did not seek an extension of time to file. Appeal 12-17296 was dismissed under Ninth Cir. R. 42-1 for failure 

to prosecute. Order, No. 12-17296 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2013) (Doc. #17).

284. Plaintiffs’ Response and Motion to Overrule Purported Class Member Donald R Earl’s Objections (Doc. #219) (filed Nov. 2, 2012). 

285. See Order (Doc. #223) (filed Nov. 13, 2012). The Court specifically overruled Objector Earl’s objections and extended the opt-out 

deadline for Mr. Earl to Dec. 10, 2012 so he could exclude himself from the settlement if he chose. Id. After the Court granted final approval of the 

Settlement after a hearing which Objector Earl did not attend, Objector Earl filed a motion to vacate the court’s Nov. 13 Order granting final 

approval and awarding attorneys’ fees. See Doc. #225 (filed Nov. 21, 2012) Plaintiffs’ filed a motion to impose sanctions on Objector Earl for filing a 

frivolous Motion to Vacate that they alleged both repeated his failed attacks on the class notice (while admitting that his prior objections were made 

without even having read the notice in full) and raised new, baseless accusations of fraud against Class Counsel. See Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 

#230) (filed Dec. 3, 2012). The Court denied Objector Earl’s motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), and denied Plaintiffs’ motion 

for sanctions in the absence of clear evidence that Objector Earl’s intentions were in bad faith. However, the court warned of future sanctions for 

continuing to file pleadings raising theories that the court has previously rejected. See Schulken v. Washington Muitual Bank, No. 09-027080, 2013 

WL 11568 (N.D. Cal. Jan 1, 2013). Objector Earl filed his notice of appeal on Jan. 30, 2013 (Doc. #238). 

286. Objector/Appellant Earl appealed the Court’s Orders: (1) granting in part and denying in part class certification (Doc. # 184), granting 

preliminary approval to the Parties’ class action settlement (Doc. #210), granting final approval to the settlement (Doc. # 223), and denying Earl’s 

motion to vacate the judgment. (Doc. #237)

287. Motion for Bond (Doc. #240) (filed Feb. 15, 2013). Plaintiffs’ request for a $20,000 appeal bond includes: $10,000 for estimated taxable 

costs (filing fees, printing and copying costs, cost of transcripts), and $10,000 for administrative costs of addressing the settlement class delay during 

the pendency of the appeal. Id.

288. Order (Doc. #259) (filed Apr. 2, 2013). Finding Plaintiffs estimate of taxable costs associated with preparing and transmitting the record 

of the case to be over-inclusive and presuming Objector Earl will pay for the transcripts, the Court reduced the bond amount requested for taxable 

costs from $10,000 to $5,000, and denied the request for $10,000 for administrative costs of addressing settlement delay as Plaintiffs were unable to 

identify any precedent or statutes authorizing administrative expenses as “costs,” nor clearly distinguish the projected costs from those that could be 

claimed as attorney’s fees. Id. Objector/Appellant Earl’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s bond order was denied by the Ninth Circuit 
88 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

on May 30, 2013. Order, No. 13-15191 (9th Cir. May 31, 2013) (Doc. #9). Objector Earl was ordered to pay for the cost of the necessary transcripts 

needed on appeal. See Doc. #263 (filed May 31, 2013). 

289. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #143) (filed Mar. 8, 2012). Plaintiffs assert that of the four 

objections, one objector had sought permission to withdraw his objection. Id.

290. See Lemus v. H & R Block Enterprises LLC., No. 09-3179, 2012 WL 3638550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012).

291. See Order, Doc. #166 (filed Sept. 10, 2012). 

292. Appeal No. 13-16628 was filed on Aug. 7, 2013 by class member Paul Madar from the court’s denial of his motion to permit a late filed 

claim to the settlement funds and denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s final approval of the settlement. Class member Madar did not object 

to the settlement thus his appeal is not considered an Objector appeal. 

293. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: parties’ stipulated 

motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

294. See Exhibit A Index of Objections Received by Class Counsel (Doc. #104-1) (filed Feb. 2, 2011).

295. See Order (Doc. #128)(filed May 31, 2011).

296. See In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, No. 10-00672, 2011 WL 7460099 (N.D. Cal. June 02, 2011).

297. See Order (Doc. #136) (filed June 17, 2011).

298. The Ninth Circuit filed an Order on Oct. 21, 2011 notifying Objector/Appellants in Appeal Nos. 11-16587, 11-16638, 11-16639, 11-

16640, and 11-16642 that they were selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. An in-person mediation/settlement conference was scheduled 

for Nov. 17, 2011 in San Francisco. See Mediation Order, Appeal No. 11-16587 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2011) (Doc. #12). The parties filed their stipulated 

motion to dismiss the appeals voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b) on Nov. 18, 2011 and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals on Nov. 21, 2011.

299. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Christopher Bandas for Appellant Kervin Walsh; Required Mediation Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

300. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

301. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

302. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Thomas L. Cox Jr. for Appellants Brent Clifton and Warren Sibley; Required Mediation Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the 

case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). 

303. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

304. See Nguyen v. BMW List of Objections Received From Class Members (Doc. #102-1) (filed Feb. 27, 2012). 

305. See Nguyen v. BMW of North America LLC, No. 10-02257, 2012 WL 1677054 (N.D. Cal. April 20, 2012).

306. Id.

307. See Judgment (Doc. #121) (May 8, 2012). 

308. Appeal No. 13-16628 was filed on Aug. 7, 2013 by class member Paul Madar from the court’s denial of his motion to permit a late filed 

claim to the settlement funds and denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s final approval of the settlement. Class member Madar did not object 

to the settlement thus his appeal is not considered an Objector appeal. 

309. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

310. Response in Opposition to Objections to Proposed Settlement (Doc. #59) (filed June 29, 2012).

311. See In re Apple iPhone 4 Products Liability Litigation, No. 5:10-md-02188, 2012 WL 3283432 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012).

312. An additional appeal was filed by lead plaintiffs Anthony Michaels and David Catapano, appealing on behalf of themselves and the class, 

most likely from the court’s decision to award class counsel only $800,000 of the $1.05 million it requested for attorney fees, and to award class 

representatives Michaels and Catapana only $2,000 of the $5,000 they requested. See Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 226) (filed July 27, 2012). Appeal No. 

12-35631 was dismissed on Aug. 30, 2012, pursuant to appellants’ FRAP 42(b) motion for voluntary dismissal.

313. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; motion to extend time to file opening brief (mooted); parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

314. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Christopher Bandas on behalf of Appellant Michael Schulz; Required Mediation Form; motion to extend time to file opening brief (granted); 

parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

315. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Christopher Bandas on behalf of Appellant Burt Chapa; Required Mediation Form; motion to extend time to file opening brief (granted); parties’ 

stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

316. Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Doc. #226) (filed Nov. 28, 2012). Plaintiffs assert 

that while there were 119 docketed items styled as “objections,” only 100 were “proper objections” due to substance (5 expressed approval for the 

settlement), objections that also requested exclusion from the settlement class, failure to meet objection deadline and procedural defects. Id.
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 89

317. See In re Netflix Privacy Litig., No. 5:11-CV-00379, 2013 WL 1120801 (N.D. Cal. March 18, 2013).

318. The Ninth Circuit granted appellees’ motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 13-15723, 13-15733, 13-15734, 13-15751, 13-15754, and 13-

15759 on July 1, 2013. 

319. The bond amount requested includes printing and administrative costs associated with responding to each appellate brief (estimated at 

$175 on each appeal), and administrative costs of continued settlement administration during the length of the appeal period. See Motion for Bond 

on Appeal (Doc. #281) (filed May 31, 2013). In addition to the bond motion, Plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting an opportunity to conduct 

limited discovery with respect to the Objectors regarding the merits of their appeals, their motivations and interests in appealing, objection 

histories, and their financial arrangements with their counsel relevant to the appeal. See Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc.

#282) (filed May 31, 2013). Both of Plaintiffs motions are scheduled for hearing on Aug. 23, 2013 in San Jose before Judge Edward Davila.

320. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #33) (filed Dec. 16, 2011). Plaintiffs filed a separate 20 page 

response to objections filed by one of the three objectors in this case. See Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Final Approval and Response to Objection of 

Fred Sondheimer (Doc. #38) (filed Jan. 6, 2012).

321. See Farrell v. OpenTable, Inc., No. 11-1785, 2012 WL 1379661 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012).

322. One of the grounds of Objector Fred Sondhiemer’s original objection was that the Settlement Agreement contained no reporting 

requirement on the number of class members receiving a refund or credit. On April 27, 2012 (3 months after Objector Sondhiemer filed his appeal), 

Plaintiff class members and Defendant OpenTable, Inc. agreed to amend the Settlement Agreement by including a stipulation in which the 

Defendant agreed to maintain reasonable records of any refunds or credits paid to settlement class members for a one year period and file this 

information with the court; Objector Sondheimer agreed to dismiss his appeal within 24 hours; and Plaintiffs’ class counsel agreed to pay Mr. 

Sondheimer and his counsel $7,000 within 14 days of Defendants’ payment to class counsel pursuant to the terms of their agreement. See Stipulation 

for Defendant to Collect Refund Information and Payment to Objector’s Counsel (Doc. #58) (filed Apr. 27, 2012). The court signed and granted the 

stipulation on May 2, 2012. (Doc. #58) (filed May 2, 2012) Objector Sondheimer voluntarily dismissed his Appeal 12-15370 the same day and 

mandate was filed in the district court on May 3, 2012. (Doc. #59) (filed May 3, 2012).

323. See Plaintiffs Reply (Doc. #89) (filed Dec. 21, 2012) (discussing the 13 objections submitted, 5 of which were allegedly untimely and/or 

otherwise procedurally improper).

324. See In re Bank of Am. Credit Protection Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 3:11-md-2269, 2013 WL 174056 (N.D. Cal. January 16, 2013).

325. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Attorney Christopher A. Bandas for Appellant Beau Lochridge; Required Mediation Form; appellant’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

326. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Allen G. Weinberg on behalf of Appellant Adina Wasserman; parties’ stipulation to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

327. See Class Counsel’s Opposition to Objections to Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #125) (filed Aug. 22, 2012) & Decl. of Tricia 

M. Solorzano on Behalf of Settlement Administrator Regarding Notice and Claims Process in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement, Ex. G (Doc. #128-7) (filed Aug. 22, 2012) (one objector could not be identified as a class member).

328. Order Granting Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Granting Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and 

Service Awards (Doc. # 137) (Sept. 28, 2012).

329. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Attorney Christopher A. Bandas for Appellant Gordon Morgan; Required Mediation Form; appellant’s motion to dismiss the case voluntarily 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

330. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance 

of Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer for Appellants Nelson and Smith; Required Mediation Form; appellants’ motion to dismiss the case voluntarily 

pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

331. See Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. #148)(filed Nov. 8, 2012). Plaintiffs contend that an appeal bond of $64,536.69 is necessary to ensure 

payment of appellate costs including (1) the estimated cost to the class of $15,000 in connection with preparation of the record on appeal and 

transcript costs; (2) estimated cost to the class of $6,536.69 in lost interest resulting from the delay caused by the appeal(based on an 18-month 

appeal period and the interest rate prescribed for judgments); and (3) estimated additional claims administrator costs of $56,500 that will be 

incurred as a result of the appeal. Id.

332. See Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Administrative Relief (Doc. #158-1) (filed Dec. 10, 2012) Plaintiffs allege that Objectors Smith, Morgan and 

Nelson filed their original objections “pro se,” then filed their notices of appeal “pro se”, and only when Plaintiffs filed their motion for an appeal 

bond did Attorneys Bandas and Palmer file their notices of appearance on behalf of Objectors. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that while the appeal bond 

motion is pending they seek from the court an order to allow the necessary discovery to establish that Palmer’s and Bandas’ appeal are 1) frivolous, 

and 2) support a pattern and practice of extracting money from Class Counsel or face a frivolous appeal. Id.

333. See Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Objection and Notice of Appeal of Gordon B. Morgan (Doc. #167-1) (filed Dec. 28, 2012). Plaintiffs allege 

that the fact that Morgan did not sign his objection nor did he sign his notice of appeal, but then represented to the court that he did, by filing them 

pro se, when in actuality Attorney Bandas drafted, signed and filed the objection and notice of appeal for Morgan, violated F.R.C.P. 11(a) and thus 

both the objection and notice of appeal must be struck. Id.

334. See Plaintiffs’ Reply to Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #46)(filed Feb. 7, 2011); and [Defendants’] Reply in 

Support of Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #45) (filed Feb. 7, 2011).

335. See Order Granting (1) Final Approval to Class Action Settlement; (2) Award of Attorney's Fees; and (3) Judgment of Dismissal. (Doc. #49) 

(filed Apr. 5, 2011).
90 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

336. The Ninth Circuit granted Appellants’ motion to consolidate Appeal Nos. 11-55674 and 11-55706. See Order (9th Cir. July 19, 2011) 

(Doc. #12).

337. See Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. Sept. 04, 2012). After a careful review of the class settlement, the Ninth Circuit 

concluded that the “district court did not apply the correct legal standards governing cy pres distributions and thus abused its discretion in 

approving the settlement. The settlement neither identifies the ultimate recipients of the product and cash cy pres awards nor sets forth any limiting 

restriction on those recipients, other than characterizing them as charities that feed the indigent.” Id. at 861. On remand, the court granted the 

parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the second revised negotiated settlement. (Doc. #95) (filed May 5, 2013). The final approval 

hearing is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2013. Several objections have been filed prior to the August 9, 2013, deadline for objections, including an objection 

filed by Attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer on behalf of Objectors Kendal Mark Jan, and Toni Ozen [(Doc. #103) (filed on Aug. 10, 2013)] and an 

objection filed by attorney Theodore Frank on behalf of Objector M. Todd Henderson [(Doc. #102) (filed Aug. 9, 2013)].

338. See id.

339. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 7 Appeal Bond (Doc. #61) (filed July 8, 2011). Although Plaintiffs stated that since there were two separate 

objector appeals, “an appeal bond of $3,000 to cover costs on appeal is reasonable,” they reserved the right to seek an increase if necessary. Id.

340. See Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for a Rule 7 Appeal Bond (Doc. #65) (filed Aug. 10, 2011) (neither Objector filed a timely opposition 

to the bond and Objector Rivero’s counsel Christopher Bandas indicated Objector Rivero did not oppose a Rule 7 bond). 

341. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees And Costs and Incentive Awards (Doc. #262) (filed Jan. 18, 2013) (arguing that the sole objection submitted by Attorney 

Theodore Frank on behalf of nominal Objector Brian Perryman should be dismissed because Objector Perryman lacks Article III standing to object 

to the proposed settlement). See also Defendant’s Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. 

#265) (filed Jan. 22, 2013) (discussing Perryman objection). On Feb. 13, 2013, Objector Perryman filed a motion requesting the court impose Rule 

11 sanctions against class counsel for filing a Memorandum in Support of Final Approval that contains claims, factual contentions and allegations 

which have no evidentiary support and are not warranted by existing law. (See Doc. #272) (filed Feb. 13, 2013). The court denied Objector 

Perryman’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. (Doc. #290) (filed May 6, 2013).

342. See In re EasySaver Rewards Litig., 921 F.Supp. 2d 1040 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013).

343. See Final Judgment (Doc. #277) (filed Feb. 21, 2013).

344. Appeal No. 13-16628 was filed on Aug. 7, 2013 by class member Paul Madar from the court’s denial of his motion to permit a late filed 

claim to the settlement funds and denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s final approval of the settlement. Class member Madar did not object 

to the settlement thus his appeal is not considered an Objector appeal. 

345. See Motion for Bond on Appeal (Doc. # 284-1) (filed 03/14/2013). Plaintiffs asserted that although they would be justified in seeking a 

bond in excess of $96,000 to cover interest on the cash fund and administrative costs, they only sought a modest bond of $15,000 for traditional 

FRAP 39(e) costs. Id.

346. See Order Granting Motion for Appellate Bond (Doc. #291) (filed May 6, 2013).

347. See Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, as Modified, Re Approval of Final Settlement; Denying in Part and Granting in Part

Objections (Doc. # 88) (filed Jan. 18, 2012).

348. See Final Judgment and Order (Doc. #109) (filed Apr. 13, 2012). The Court overruled the objections except for the argument made by 

Objectors Charmaine Griffith, Deidre Quenell, Rosemary Cohorst filed by Susan Kreidler that individual notice should be sent to class members 

with known addresses. Due to the request for attorneys’ fees and costs by Objectors’ counsel, the final decision on the distribution of the fee award 

to Class and Objectors counsel was postponed until after the May 7, 2012 hearing on Objectors’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

349. See Cohorst v. BRE Props., Inc., No. 10-2666, 2012 WL 2001754 (S.D. Cal. June 05, 2012) (the court denied the motion for attorneys’ 

fees by Attorneys for Objectors Yanique Dias and Gilliane Graber and granted counsel for Objector Susan Kreidler's motion for attorney's fees and 

costs in the amount of $69,641).

350. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Questionnaire; stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss case with prejudice pursuant to FRAP 42(b). In addition to stipulating to the dismissal of 

her appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b), Objector Kreidler filed a motion to withdraw all objections made to the settlement approved by the court. 

(Doc. #126)(filed Aug. 28, 2012).

351. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Objections (Doc. #125) (filed July 2, 2012) (asserting that one of the two objections should not be considered 

because it did not comply with the Court’s preliminary approval order or the S.D. Cal.’s Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Administrative 

Policies and Procedures Manual, and was filed by two attorneys not authorized to practice law in the district).

352. See In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-cv-00205, 2012 WL 2802051 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2012).

353. The Ninth Circuit sua sponte consolidated Appeal Nos. 12-56469 and 12-56478 on Sept. 5, 2012. 

354. On Dec. 3, 2012, the district court denied a motion, filed by Objectors Courtney Drey and Andrea Pridham on November 5, 2012, to 

vacate the Court’s order approving the class settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Doc. #154 (filed Dec. 3, 2012).

355. Plaintiff’s request for an appellate bond in the amount of $21,970.72 included: $15,000.000 for costs incurred in opposing the appeal; 

$5,573.80 for administrative costs of keeping in contact with claimants about the status of their claim pending appeal; and $1,396.92 for post 

judgment interest. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. 140-1) (filed Oct. 11, 2012).

356. See Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Request for an Appeal Bond (Doc. #150) (filed Nov. 9, 2012). The Court concluded that an appeal bond was 

not necessary because Plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence to establish that there was a risk of nonpayment by Objectors should Plaintiffs be 

awarded costs on appeal. 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 91

357. See Order Denying Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #97) (filed Sept. 28, 2012). After considering all 18 

objections to the settlement, the Court overruled all objections except for two objections to the cy pres award. Unable to strike down only the cy pres

portion of the settlement, the court denied the joint motion for final approval of the class action settlement. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs and 

Defendants filed a revised stipulation of settlement which directly addressed the Court’s concerns by striking the cy pres provisions in their entirety 

while keeping the settlement unchanged in all other respects. 

358. See Order Approving Class Action Settlement (Doc. #108) (filed Dec. 12, 2012) and Final Judgment (Doc. # 109) (filed Dec. 18, 2012).

359. On May 17, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order informing Attorney Paul Hansmeier that he must withdraw as counsel of record for 

Objector/Appellant Browne within 14 days because he was not eligible to represent parties in the appeal due to the fact that on May 15, 2013, the 

court ordered Hansmeier’s application for admission to the bar of the Ninth Circuit held in abeyance pending the outcome of his referral to the 

Minnesota State Bar and the Central District of California Standing Committee on Discipline for sanctions imposed in an appeal pending in the 

Central District of California. See Order, No. 13-55118 (9th Cir. May 17, 2013)(Doc. #16).

360. See Joint Response to Objections to Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Doc. #107) (filed Aug. 13, 2012).

361. See Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-2039, 2012 WL 5359485 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31).

362. Originally due on Feb. 22, 2013, Objectors Carapia and Johnson were granted two requested 30-day extensions to file their appellant 

brief. See Orders, No. 12-57074 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2013 & Apr. 9, 2013) (Docs. #10, #12). Objector/appellants did not file their opening brief by 

April 22, 2013. On June 11, 2013, Appeal No. 12-57074 was dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. 

363. The Ninth Circuit, on May 7, 2013, stayed the appellate proceedings filed by Henry Gonzales until July 23, 2013, or until the bond 

amount at issue was resolved. Order, No. 12-57081 (9th Cir. May 7, 2013) (Doc. #24). Following the court’s June 6, 2013 Bond Order, 

Objector/Appellant Gonzalez posted a $5,000 bond with the district court. (Doc. #150) (filed July 11, 2013).

364. Originally due on March 11, 2013, Objector Elizondo was granted a requested 30-day extension to file his appellant brief. See Order, No. 

12-57184 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) (Doc. #7). Objector/appellant did not file his opening brief by April 10, 2013. On June 3, 2013, Appeal No. 12-

57184 was dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. 

365. See Joint Motion to Set Bond Amount (Doc. #138) (filed Dec. 20, 2012). The Court imposed an appeal-bond requirement in its final 

approval order. Specifically, the Court ordered that "[a]ny Class Member seeking to appeal . . . must . . . post an appropriate bond" to cover costs on

appeal. See Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-2039, 2012 WL 5359485 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 31), at ¶ 10. The parties pointed out that despite this 

requirement, the three groups of objectors who filed notices of appeal did so without even seeking a determination of the bond amount they were 

required to post. Settling Plaintiffs and Defendent requested that the appeal bond be set at $235,500.66, asserting this amount as “a conservative 

estimate of the damages, costs, and interests that will result from the appeal.” Specifically, the parties estimate that the bond is necessary to cover: 

$3,660 to print, file, and serve all the necessary ninth circuit papers; $12,000 for administrative costs that will be incurred in order "to continue to 

service and respond to class members' needs pending the appeal; $203,650 in attorney fees to defend the appeals; $16,190.66 for post-judgment 

interest (calculated using 622 day average appeal period and a .19% interest rate on the $5 million settlement fund). See Joint Motion, supra.

366. See Order Granting in Part Joint Motion to Set Bond Amount (Doc. #147) (filed June 6, 2013). The Court concluded that because it had 

already considered and overruled the objections, it was unlikely the objectors would prevail on appeal, thus it was appropriate to require the posting 

of an appeal bond. However, the Court refused to award the amount ($235,500.66) sought by the parties finding that only the parties’ request for 

appellate costs was warranted in this case (finding the parties failed to establish that the claim was brought under a fee-shifting statute allowing 

recovery of attorneys’ fees from an objecting class member, and the court declined to impose post-judgment interest and administrative costs, 

deeming them to be delay costs, and finding that such anticipated damages were not required.) The Court agreed with the objectors’ assessment that 

a low bond amount was sufficient in this case and set the appeal bond amount at $5,000.00 to be posted collectively by all objector-appellants.

367. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Doc. 

#34-1) (filed Dec. 3, 2012).

368. See Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Granting in Part Motion For Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #39) (filed Dec. 

10, 2012). The court determined that an award of not more than $192,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to class counsel would be entered upon 

submission of sufficient documentation that permits the Court to find that class counsel’s hours and expenses were reasonable and whether a 

multiplier should be applied.

369. Objector McDonald posted the $1,000 appeal bond on May 28, 2013. (Doc. #72) (filed May 28, 2013). The Court granted Objector 

McDonald’s ex parte motion for the disclosure of the data showing how many class members requested a coupon under the settlement agreement. 

(Doc. #71) (filed May 20, 2013) The Ninth Circuit, on July 22, 2013, construed McDonald’s late motion for a further extension of time to file her 

appellate brief as a motion to stay proceedings until Oct. 17, 2013. Order, No. 13-55059 (9th Cir. July 22, 2013) (Doc. #12). 

370. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. #52-1) (filed Jan. 22, 2013). Plaintiff 

requested that McDonald and/or her counsel be required to post a bond of $5,000.00 based on a reasonable estimate of the taxable costs that were 

likely to be incurred in defending the case throughout the appeal.

371. See Order in part Granting Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. #70) (May 20, 2013). Court concluded that since each objection was without 

merit, the posting of an appeal bond was warranted, but the amount of the appeal bond was found to be excessive because the Plaintiff provided no 

detail as to why a $5,000.00 bond would be appropriate. Even allowing for significant potential administrative costs while the case was on appeal, 

the Court found that $1,000.00 was a reasonable appeal bond amount.

372. See Int’l Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. Int’l Game Tech., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-00419, 2012 WL 5199742 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 

2012).

373. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Objector/ appellant 

failed to file his opening brief by Feb. 25, 2013 as required, did not seek an extension of time to file, and failed to order transcripts pursuant to court 

order and Circuit Rules.
92 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

374. The 32 separate objections represented a total of 35 class members (1 objection was filed by counsel representing two objectors and 

remaining 31 objections were brought pro se). See Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motions for Final Approval and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 

# 163) (filed Oct. 31, 2008). 

375. See Order granting Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Doc. #177) (filed Nov. 7, 2008) and Final Judgment (Doc. #176) 

(filed Nov. 7, 2008).

376. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Notice of Appeal filed by Objectors Jehle and Richeson alleging that their attorneys, Kearney Dee 

Hutsler and Richard G. Baker, were not members of the bar of the Western District of Washington and they did not seek admission pro hac vice

prior to filing the Notice of Appeal on Dec. 8, 2008. See Motion to Strike Appeal (Doc. # 194) (filed Dec. 24, 2008). The Court refused to strike the 

Objectors’ notice of appeal since Attorneys Hutsler and Baker were under the impression that the Rules of Procedure of the JPMDL did not require 

objectors’ attorneys to seek admission pro hac vice, and they associated with local counsel and were admitted pro hac vice in January 2009. See Order 

Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 208) (filed Jan. 15, 2009). 

377. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: stipulated motion to 

voluntarily dismiss case with prejudice pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

378. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement and Mediation Form; stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss case with prejudice pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

379. Plaintiffs asked the court to require a total appeal bond of $40,811.20 consisting of: (1) $1,000 for the cost of the appeal for filing and 

brief preparation costs; (2) $30,000 for estimated appellate attorneys’ fees the class would incur on appeal; and (3) interest on unpaid attorney’s fees, 

estimated at $9,811.20 assuming the case took only 1 year to go through the appellate process. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. # 184) 

(filed Dec. 5, 2008). 

380. The Court was not persuaded that including attorneys’ fees or interest on unpaid attorneys’ fees on appeal was appropriate in setting the 

amount of the cost bond in this case. See Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. # 207) (filed Jan. 15, 

2009). It appears that the full amount of $1,000 for the appeal bond was posted by Attorney Hutsler on behalf of Objector/Appellants Jehle and 

Richeson on Jan. 30, 2009. (Doc. # 209) Following voluntary dismissal of their appeal, the court granted the Objectors motion to exonerate the 

appeal bond and return it to counsel for the Objectors. (Doc. # 213) (filed Apr. 10, 2009).

381. See Class Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Memorandum of Authorities to Postpone Class Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action 

Settlement and Settlement Class Certification (Doc. #60) (filed Jan. 22, 2010). Class plaintiffs pointed out that pursuant to the Court’s Order 

preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement, anyone with any objection to the Settlement or who wished not to participate in the Settlement 

could file an objection or opt out of the Class by filing appropriate documentation on or before December 29, 2009, and no one did so.

382. The final fairness hearing on class settlement was held on Jan. 15, 2010 during which Original Class Representative Su Shin and one of 

her counsel of record, Alana Bullis, whom both had initially approved the Settlement and did not submit an objection prior to the Dec. 29, 2009 

deadline, raised objections to the settlement which they assert they only recently became aware of. The court ordered Class Counsel to address the 

issues raised. On Jan. 29, 2010, the Court rejected the objections to the settlement filed by Ms. Shin’s counsel Bullis, denied their motion to 

postpone the final hearing, granted Class Counsel’s motion to substitute Karen Seger as the named-plaintiff and class representative, and granted 

Final Judgment and Order approving the class action settlement and request for attorney fees. (Doc. # 67) (filed Jan. 29, 2010). Realizing that 

Defendants were not in compliance with the reporting requirements under CAFA 28 USC §1715(d), on Feb. 2, 2010, the district court re-opened 

the case and vacated the Final Judgment, and re-noted the hearing date for entry of its final order certifying the settlement class and approving the 

settlement until March 29, 2010, after the 90-day period required by §1715(d) had expired. Thus, on April 2, 2010, the court re-entered the Final 

Judgment and Order Approving the Settlement and Dismissing the Claims of Class Members with Prejudice. (Doc. #75) (filed Apr. 2, 2010).

383. Objector-Appellant Shin filed the initial notice of appeal on Jan. 29, 2010 following the initial Final Judgment and Approval of 

Settlement issued on Jan. 29, 2010 which was subsequently vacated and re-entered on April 2, 2010. Objector Shin filed an Amended Notice of 

Appeal on April 22, 2010. See discussion supra note 382.

384. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Docketing 

Statement and Mediation Form; Response to Rule 54(b) Order to Show Cause (requiring Appellant to show cause why the Ninth Circuit should 

retain jurisdiction of the appeal after the district court vacated the initial judgment); amended notice of appeal; stipulated motion to voluntarily 

dismiss case with prejudice pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

385. The court worked with the parties to create a class notice that permitted class members to participate online, including the ability to 

object to the settlement via an online submission. Class counsel reported that prior to the Nov. 18, 2011 cut-off date for filing objections, 370 

objections were submitted to either Class Counsel, the Court, or the Settlement Administrator including 206 objections received via email and the 

remaining via US mail. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Revised Class Action Settlement (Doc. # 176) (filed Dec. 7, 2011). 

386. Judge Richard A. Jones expressed gratitude towards the many class members who filed objections which he credits as helping him to 

reject the parties’ first settlement in February 2011 as unfair, not reasonable, and inadequate. See In re Classmates.com Consol. Litig., No. 2:09-cv00045, 2011 WL 744664 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 23, 2011). Class Counsel and Defendants negotiated a new settlement which the court characterized as 

“underwhelming” but a dramatic improvement over the 2010 version. See In re Classmates.com Consol. Litig., No. 2:09-cv-00045, 2012 WL 3854501 

(W.D. Wash. June 15, 2012). In the final Order, the court rejected claims for attorneys’ fees submitted by two objectors (Christopher Langone and 

California attorney Charles Chalmers representing two California objectors), but agreed to grant Objector Michael Krauss’s request to forgo his 

motion for attorney fees and instead sanction class counsel for their decision to issue legally invalid and wholly improper subpoenas against 

Objector Krauss’s counsel (Krauss was represented by attorneys for the Center for Class Action Fairness). The Court reduced Class Counsels’ 

attorney fee award by $100,000 to be distributed to class members who had submitted claims. 

387. An additional appeal was filed by lead plaintiffs Anthony Michaels and David Catapano, appealing on behalf of themselves and the class, 

most likely from the court’s decision to award class counsel only $800,000 of the $1.05 million it requested for attorney fees, and to award class 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 93

representatives Michaels and Catapana only $2,000 of the $5,000 they requested. See Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 226) (filed July 27, 2012). Appeal No. 

12-35631 was dismissed on Aug. 30, 2012, pursuant to appellants’ FRAP 42(b) motion for voluntary dismissal. 

388. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; Notice of Appearance of Attorney Christopher Bandas; unopposed motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

389. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; unopposed motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

390. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; unopposed motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

391. See Motion Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Response to Objections by Plaintiff (Doc. #84) (filed Oct. 6, 2011).

392. See Judgment and Order of Final Approval (Doc. #91) (filed Oct. 21, 2011).

393. Because Objector-Appellant Nigaglioni’s Nov. 28, 2011 Notice of Appeal was not filed within 30 days from entry of the Oct. 21, 2011 

Judgment, on Dec. 15, 2011 Objector-Appellant filed a timely motion for an extension of time to appeal pursuant to FRAP 4(a)(5). (Doc. # 93)(filed 

Dec. 15, 2011). The Court granted Objector Nigaglioni an 8-day extension of time to file his notice of appeal, thus the district court considered his 

Nov. 28, 2011 notice of appeal to have been timely filed. (Doc. # 98) (filed Jan. 17, 2012). 

394. Palmer v. Nigaglioni., No. 11-35991, 2013 WL 542852 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2012) (Judgment Mandate issued Mar. 11, 2013). 

395. In the Sept. 17, 2012 Settlement Order and Final Judgment, the Court stated that all objections to the Original Settlement (rejected by the 

Court in Jan. 2011) and to the Amended Settlement had been considered, listing the 26 objections that were filed on behalf of 34 class members. 

Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 10-cv-198, 2012 WL 4075238 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2012). Twenty-one of the 26 objections were brought by pro se

objectors, and the remaining 5 objections were brought by attorneys on behalf of 13 objectors: Attorney Thomas L. Cox filed objections twice on 

behalf of Objectors Sara Sibley and Judith Brown (filed Dec. 13, 2010 & July 19, 2012); Attorney Donald Yarbough filed objections twice on behalf 

of 9 named Objectors/class members (filed Dec. 16, 2010 & July 9, 2012); Attorney Darrell Palmer filed an objection on behalf of Objectors Patrick 

Sweeney & Sasha McBean (filed Dec. 13, 2010). On Sept. 14, 2012, the Court granted Class Plaintiffs’ motion for revocation of the Court’s order 

granting admission pro hac vice to Attorney Darrell Palmer, (Doc. # 251, filed Aug. 20, 2012), brought in response to discovering that Mr. Palmer’s 

pro hac vice application in another case before the District Court had been denied because Mr. Palmer had made false statements in his application 

by failing to mention that as a result of a Colorado felony conviction he had been suspended from three state bar associations. See infra discussion of 

Herfert v. Crayola, LLC, No. 11-1301 (W.D. Wash Aug. 5, 2011).

396. See Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 10-cv-198, 2012 WL 4075238 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2012) (Settlement Order and Final Judgment); 

Arthur v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 10-cv-198, 2012 WL 4076119 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2012) (Order Approving Class Counsels' Motion For Award Of 

Attorneys' Fees And Costs And Service Awards In Connection With Amended Settlement).

397. Class Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order requiring Objectors’ counsel Thomas L. Cox to show cause for why he should not be 

sanctioned for appearing before the district court three times in this case (filed objections to the original settlement and to the amended settlement 

and filed the October 17 Notice of Appeal on behalf of Objectors Sibley and Brown) without seeking pro hac vice admission to the W.D. Washington 

district court and for failing to join local counsel to sign his filings, both of which are required by Local Rule. (Doc. #276) (filed Oct. 19, 2012). After 

failing to respond by the deadline established, the court ordered Mr. Cox to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to apply for 

leave to appear pro hac vice. (Doc. #287) (filed Nov. 21, 2012). Mr. Cox filed his Response to Show Cause on November 28, 2012. The court did not 

have the opportunity to rule on Class Plaintiffs’ motion because Class Plaintiffs’ withdrew their pending motion to Show Cause in response to 

Objectors motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b). (Doc. # 292) (filed Dec. 4, 2012).

398. Significant documents and/or motions filed by the objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: Required Mediation 

Form; unopposed motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

399. Included in Class Plaintiffs’ requested bond amount of $189,344 were the estimated cost of $15,000 for preparation of the record on 

appeal and transcript costs; estimated cost to class of $34,344 in lost interest resulting from the delay caused by the appeal (based on an 18-month 

appeal period); and an estimated additional claims administrator cost of $140,000 that will be incurred due to the appeal. See Class Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Appeal Bond (Doc. #279) (filed Oct. 25, 2010). Due to Objectors Sibley and Brown and their counsel Thomas Cox’s failure to respond by the 

required deadline to Class Plaintiff’s motion for an appeal bond, the court ordered Objectors to show cause why an appeal bond should not issue in 

the amount requested by Class Plaintiffs. (Doc. #287) (filed Nov. 21, 2012). Objector Brown filed her opposition on November 28, 2012. (Doc. 

#289) (filed Nov. 28, 2012) The court did not rule on Class Plaintiffs’ motion before the Objectors dismissed their appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) 

on December 5, 2012. 

400. Although not officially consolidated, the Settlement approved in Dennings v. Clearwater Corp. represents a final adjudication on the 

merits of all claims of the Settlement Class with respect to matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in three separate cases filed as class 

actions: this case, Dennings v. Clearwater, No. 10-01859; Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-00912 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2009), stayed 

pending resolution of appeal, No. 10-35228 (9th Cir. March 8, 2010); and Newton v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:11-cv-00783 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

401. Seven objections were filed pro se, and a final objection was filed on behalf of 2 objectors by their counsel Christopher Bandas. Plaintiffs 

motioned the court for permission to serve subpoenas and take the depositions of Objectors Mr. Gordon Morgan and Mr. Jeremy De La Garza, on 

whose behalf their counsel Mr. Christopher Bandas filed a joint objection to the proposed settlement. (Doc. #78) (filed Dec. 6, 2012). Determining 

that Plaintiffs had raised “legitimate concerns regarding whether the objections . . . [were] serious and whether their attorney is a so-called 

‘professional objector,’” the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to depose the Objectors. (Doc. #84) (filed Dec. 11, 2012). The Court summarized in 

the introductory remarks to several court orders in this case that the “depositions revealed that Mr. Morgan had no personal objection to the 

settlement, neither of them had read the settlement agreement or their own objections to it, and both had worked with the same attorney on other 

class action cases.” See, e.g., Order Denying Motion to Stay (Doc. # 152) (filed July 11, 2013) referencing Plaintiffs Memorandum (Doc. #97) (filed 

Dec. 18, 2012), Exs. A, B (depositions of Mr. Morgan and Mr. De La Garza). 
94 FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C

402. See Settlement Order and Final Judgment (Doc. #99) (filed Dec. 20, 2012). 

403. See Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. 10-cv-1859, 2013 WL 1858797 (W.D. Wash. May 03, 2013) (Order Granting Motion For Attorney's 

Fees And Expenses).

404. The Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’/Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s Dec. 20, 2012 Settlement Order 

and Final Judgment finding that the “questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.” Order, Dennings v. 

Clearwire, No. 13-35038 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2013) (Judgment Mandate issued June 3, 2013). The Objectors ignored the Court’s March 11, 2013 Bond 

Order and petitioned for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. See Petition for Rehearing, Dennings v. Clearwire, No. 13-35038 (9th Cir. May 6, 2013). 

Class Plaintiffs moved to hold the Objectors in contempt for ignoring the Court’s March 11, 2013 Order to post an appeal bond. (Doc. #128)(filed 

May 9, 2013). In response, on May 15, 2013, the Objectors moved to dismiss their appeal voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b), and the Ninth 

Circuit construed this as a motion to voluntarily withdraw the objectors’ request for a rehearing and granted the motion. See Order, Dennings v. 

Clearwire, No. 13-35038 (9th Cir. May 24, 2013). Judge Robart denied Class Plaintiff’s motion for contempt finding that although the “objectors 

still have not posted an appeal bond, they have effectively complied with the court’s order by dismissing their notice of appeal.” (Doc. # 130) (filed 

June 3, 2013).

405. On July 9, 2013, Attorney Christopher Bandas filed an amended notice of appeal to inform the court that Objector-Appellants Morgan 

and De La Garza also intended to appeal from the Court’s Amended Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond entered on July 9, 2013, and from 

“any order or judgment approving the class settlement, class counsel’s attorneys’ fees or expenses, and/or incentive awards to class representatives, 

and any order or judgment naming or identifying this objector or the objection filed by this objector, including any entered or signed subsequent to 

this notice of appeal.” (Doc. # 150) (filed July 9, 2013). In addition, on July 9, 2013, relying on Ninth Circuit law indicating that $39,150 of the 

$41,150 bond was comprised of impermissible costs, Objectors sent to the district court a check in the amount of $2,000 to timely post what

Objectors believed to be the undisputed amount of the $41,150 appeal bond under Ninth Circuit law. The Court rejected Objectors’ good faith 

attempt to post a $2,000 bond and returned the $2,000 check. (Doc. # 155) (filed July 25, 2013). Also on July 9, 2013, Mr. Bandas filed an 

Emergency Motion to Stay the District Court’s July 9, 2013 Order requiring Objectors to post an appeal bond before proceeding with their appeal to 

allow the Ninth Circuit to decide the validity of the remaining portion of the bond amounting to $39, 150. (Doc. # 151)(filed July 9, 2013). The 

emergency motion was denied on July 11, 2013 (Doc. #152) (filed July 11, 2013), and on that same day Objectors filed a Rule 27-3 motion for 

emergency review with the Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of the District Court’s appeal bond order. On July 15, 2013, the Ninth Circuit summarily 

rejected Objectors’ arguments and denied Objectors’ Emergency Motion to Stay the Appeal Bond. See Order, Dennings v. Clearwire, No. 13-35491 

(9th Cir. July 15, 2013). On July 19, 2013, the District Court issued an order for Objectors’ counsel to appear on August 1 and show cause why they 

and their clients should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with a court order to post the $41,150 appeal bond. (Doc. #154)(filed July 19, 2013). 

On July 23, 2013, Objectors posted the appeal bond in full in the requested amount of $41,150 with the Court and Mr. Bandas requested that the 

Court vacate the order to appear and show cause arguing that sanctions are now unnecessary. (Doc. # 155) (filed July 25, 2013). On July 26, 2013, 

Judge Robart denied Objectors’ motion to vacate the show cause order finding that the “fact that Objectors posted bond after being ordered to 

appear and face sanctions does not exonerate Objectors any more than it would exonerate a criminal defendant to return stolen property after being 

charged with theft. The punishable conduct has already occurred and cannot be taken back. Accordingly Objectors’ counsel have been ordered to 

appear in court, explain their actions, and face sanctions should the court decide to impose them.” (Doc. # 156) (filed July 26, 2013). In addition, 

the court denied Mr. Bandas’ request to appear by telephone stating that if “Objectors’ counsel intends to litigate in the State of Washington, he 

must be prepared to appear in Washington when ordered to do so by the court. The nature of Objectors’ behavior in these proceedings makes this 

sanctions hearing more appropriate for in-person resolution.” Id. On July 30, 2013, Judge Robart issued an order to provide counsel for Objectors 

“notice of the legal rule on which sanctions would be based, the form of the potential sanctions, and to notify Objectors and their counsel that they 

stand accused of bad faith conduct—namely, willful disobedience of a court order.” (Doc. # 158) (filed July 30, 2013). On July 31, 2013, the Court 

denied Christopher Bandas’ motion (Doc. # 159) (filed July 31, 2013) to continue his show cause hearing, pointing out that Mr. Bandas is mistaken 

to conclude that this is a criminal (or even a civil) contempt proceeding for which he is entitled to due process protections that he has not been 

afforded pursuant to the Courts’ July 30, 2013 Order. Judge Robart clarified that this is not a contempt proceeding at all, but a sanctions hearing 

and the law that applies is the law of sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, not the law of contempt. (Doc. # 160) (filed July 31, 2013).

However, even though the sanctions hearing was ordered to take place on Aug. 1, 2013 as scheduled, Judge Robart did agree to provide Mr. Bandas 

with additional procedural protections and opportunities to be heard. See Order Denying Motion to Continue (Doc. # 160)(filed July 31, 2013). The 

Show Cause hearing was held on Aug. 1, 2013 and continued to Aug. 20, 2013 with additional briefing due by Aug. 16, 2013. (Doc. #162)(Minute 

Entry for proceedings held on Aug. 1, 2013). Following the show cause hearing held on Aug. 20, 2013, the court heard from counsel regarding 

sanctions and concluded that the “appropriate sanction is to revoke Mr. Bandas’ authorization to practice in the Western District of Washington.” 

(Doc. #166) (Minute Entry for proceedings held on Aug. 20, 2013).

406. Plaintiffs asked the court to require a total appeal bond of $41,150 to ensure payment of appellate costs that consisted of: (1) $2,000 in 

costs for ordering a transcript, preparation of excerpts of record, copying or printing, binding, filing, service, and delivery of the necessary copies of 

a brief, appendix, and record; and (2) $39,150 in incremental settlement administration charges likely to be incurred as a result of the appeal 

(calculated by multiplying estimated monthly increase in settlement administration costs of $2,250 by the median length of a Ninth Circuit appeal 

(17.4 months)). See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. # 107) (filed Feb. 20, 2013). Defendant Clearwater joined in Plaintiffs’ motion for an 

appeal bond. (Doc. # 110) (filed Feb. 21, 2013).

407. The Court ordered the Objectors to post an appeal bond of $41,150 or dismiss their appeal because (1) the objectors’ underlying 

objections were without merit; (2) there was a “risk of non-payment of appeal costs given that both objectors live in Texas, and it may therefore be 

difficult to enforce a cost order imposed upon them”; (3) the objectors appeared to have the ability to pay an appeal bond; and (4) there was 

evidence presented that the objectors “had vexatious intent in filing their notice of appeal . . .” Bond Order (Doc. #117) (filed Mar. 11, 2013).

408. Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appeal Bond in Connection with Objectors’ Second Appeal (Doc. #134) (filed June 13, 2012). See supra note 406

for original description of items included within Plaintiff’s request for a total appeal bond of $41,150. 
FJC Report on Class Action Objector Appeals in Three Circuit Courts of Appeals ~ October 2013 ~ Appendix C 95

409. Amended Order Granting Motion for Appeal Bond (Doc. # 149) (filed July 8, 2013). See supra note 407 for court’s reasons for imposing 

the original March 13, 2013 Bond Order. 

410. Although the sole Objector Amber Pederson filed her objection pro se, Class Plaintiffs point out that the affidavit accompanying the 

objection was notarized by Margot Valdez, who was the legal secretary of attorney Christopher Bandas. See Objection to Settlement filed by Claimant 

Amber Pederson (Doc. #47) (filed April 2, 2012) & Declaration of Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Ex. 1 (Doc. #57) (filed June 21, 2012). Objector Pederson did 

not appear at the Final Approval hearing. (Doc. #50, Minute Entry April 24, 2012).

411. See Final Order (Doc. #51) (filed Apr. 27, 2012). 

412. Although Objector Pederson filed a notice of appeal pro se on May 14, 2012, when lead class counsel attempted to contact Objector 

Pederson on May 24, 2012 by calling the phone number she listed on her objection, Christopher Bandas, an attorney at the Bandas Law Firm in 

Corpus Christi, Texas, returned the call and informed class counsel that he was representing Amber Pederson. See Declaration of Lynn Lincoln Sarko

(Doc. #57) (filed June 21, 2012). Lead class counsel pointed out that Attorney Bandas had not filed a notice of appearance on Objector Pederson’s 

behalf in the district court, nor had he done so with respect to Objector Pederson’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Id. 

413. See infra note 417.

414. See infra notes 418–19.

415. On Sept. 17, 2012, the Court denied Objector-Appellant’s motion to stay the posting of a $20,000 appellate bond pending the outcome of 

her appeal of the Court’s July 31, 2012 Order. In addition, given that the Objector-Appellant did not comply with the court’s Aug. 31, 2012 deadline 

for filing the appeal bond, the Court ordered that the Objector-Appellant either immediately comply with the Court’s July 31, 2012 Order requiring 

the posting of a $20,000 appellate bond, or file a notice of dismissal of her appeal. Furthermore, the Court added: “Failure to take one of these two 

actions by Thursday, September 20, 2012 may result in a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of appropriate sanctions, such as the striking 

of Claimant’s objection to the Final Settlement.” See Order Re: Motion to Stay the Posting of an Appeal Bond (Doc. # 79) (filed Sept. 17, 2012). On 

Sept. 22, 2012, Objector-Appellant filed a Notice informing the court that she wished to withdraw her objection to the settlement pursuant to Civil 

Rule 23(e)(5). (Doc. # 80) (filed Sept. 22, 2012). On Sept. 26, the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to 

FRAP 42(b). 

416. Significant documents and/or motions filed by objector(s)/appellant(s) prior to final disposition of the appeal: notice of appearance of 

attorney Joseph Darrell Palmer for Appellant Pederson; motion to extend time to file opening brief (granted; opening brief due Sept. 21, 2012); 

motion to stay district court action and replies to responses by appellees; motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b).

417. Included in Class Plaintiffs and Defendants joint request for a bond amount of $20,000 is a “reasonable estimate of costs permitted 

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e); it also includes attorney fees and accounts for the lack of merit of the appeal and the involvement 

of professional objector Christopher Bandas.” See Declaration of Lynn Lincoln Sarko in Support of Joint Motion to Require Attorney Christopher 

Bandas and Objector Amber Pederson to Post Appeal Bond, and Seeking Any Other Appropriate Relief to Protect the Class (Doc. #57) (filed June 21, 

2012). On July 5, 2012, Objector-Appellant’s Response in Opposition to Class Counsel’s Motion for Appeal Bond was filed by Attorney Darrell 

Palmer, Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC located in Solana Beach, CA. (Doc. #60) (filed July 5, 2012). On July 5, 2012, Attorney Darrell Palmer 

filed an application for leave to appear pro hac vice. On July 16, 2012, the Court admitted attorney Darrell Palmer on behalf of Objector Amber 

Pederson. (Doc. #59) (filed July 5, 2012) & (Doc. # 64) (filed July 16, 2012). 

418. After analyzing the factors recently set out in In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor Overtime Pay Litig., No. 07-1841, 2011 WL 3352460, at *10 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011) to arrive at the $20,000 bond amount, the Court found that imposition of the bond was warranted because Ms. Pederson is 

the only objector out of millions of claimants, the appeal appears to be vexatious and frivolous, there is a serious risk that Ms. Pederson will not be 

available to pay any costs in the event she loses an appeal, and the apparent ability of her attorney to post the bond. See Joint Opposition to Objector 

Pederson’s Motion to Stay Posting of Appeal Bond and Related Discovery (Doc. # 75)(filed Aug. 29, 2012). On August 7, 2012, Attorney Darrell Palmer 

filed an amended notice of appeal to inform the court that Objector-Appellant Pederson also intended to appeal from the Court’s Minute Order 

entered on July 31, 2012, ordering Pederson and attorney Bandas to post a $20,000 appeal bond. (Doc. #69) (filed Aug. 7, 2012). In addition, Mr. 

Palmer filed a motion requesting that the imposition of the bond be stayed pending the outcome of Objector-Appellant’s appeal of the appellate 

bond to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. # 68) (filed Aug. 7, 2012).

419. In addition to imposing a deadline to file the bond, Judge John C. Coughenour ordered Objector’s counsel Darrell Palmer to appear 

before the Court on Aug. 21, 2012, to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for submitting a pro hac vice application in which he 

declared under penalty of perjury that he had not been disbarred or formally censured by a court of record or by a state bar association, in direct 

opposition to the California Bar Association web site which states that Mr. Palmer was suspended and publicly reproved as a result of a conviction. 

Minute Order (Doc. # 71) (filed Aug. 10, 2012). Prior to the Aug. 21 show cause hearing, the court issued an order denying Darrell Palmer’s 

application to appear pro hac vice due to material nondisclosures in his application which he attributed to an oversight on the part of his assistant, 

which resulted in his failure to inform the court that he was temporarily suspended from the state bars of Colorado, California and Arizona as a 

result of a Colorado felony conviction. Order Denying Application of Claimant’s Counsel Darrell Palmer to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Doc. #74) (filed 

Aug. 17, 2012).