N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : OPTIC AL DISK DRIVE PR ODUC TS ANTITR

UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER C LASS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C ONNER

ER W IN, Obje c tor-Appe lla

nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15065 D.C . No. 3:10-md-02143-R S M EM O R ANDUM *

In re : OPTIC AL DISK DRIVE PR ODUC TS ANTITR

UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER C LASS, No. 17-15067

D.C . No. 3:10-md-02143-R S



# FIL ED MAY15 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,

v. C HR ISTOPHER

ANDRE W S, Obje c tor-Appe lla

nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. In re : OPTIC AL DISK DRIVE PR ODUC TS ANTITR

UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER C LASS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B ARB AR

A C OC HR

AN, Obje c tor-Appe lla

nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15143 D.C . No. 3:10-md-02143-R S

2In re : OPTIC AL DISK DRIVE

PR ODUC TS ANTITR

UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER C LASS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HR ISTOPHER

ANDRE W S, Obje c tor-Appe lla

nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-17436 D.C . No. 3:10-md-02143-R S

In re : OPTIC AL DISK DRIVE PR ODUC TS ANTITR

UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER C LASS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C ONNER

ER W IN, No. 17-17439 D.C . No. 3:10-md-02143-R S

3Obje c tor-Appe lla nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2019 Subm ission Va c ate d Ja

nua ry 24, 2020 R e subm itte d M ay

8, 2020 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FAR

R IS, B EA, a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. Obje c tor C hristophe r Andre ws a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs a pproving se ttle m e nt

a gre e m e nts in a

c o n sum e r e le c tronic s c la ss a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t

c ourt’ s a pprova l of the se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nts. 1

“ A binding settle m e nt m

ust provide notic e to the c la ss in a ‘ re a sona ble m anne r’ and othe rwise be ‘ fa ir, re a sona ble , a nd a de quate . ’ ” In re Hy u ndai &K ia Fue l Ec on. Litig. , 926 F.3d 539, 567 (9th C i r. 2019) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Fe d. R . 1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

n d the proc e d

ura l history , we do not re c ount the m

he re . 4C iv. P. 23(e )(1), (2)). “ Wh e n the distric t c ourt de te rm ine s tha

t a propose d se ttle m e nt is funda

m e nta lly fa ir, a de quate , a

n d re a s ona

ble , our re vie w ‘ is e xtre m e ly lim ite d.’ ” Hy u n dai , 926 F.3d a t 569 (quoting H

anlon v . C

hry sle r C orp. , 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th C ir. 1998)). 1. Andre ws c h a lle nge s the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts on va rious grounds, inc l uding a lle ge d de fic ie nc ie s in the la ngua ge of the se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nts, the se ttle m e nt c la ss pe riods, a nd the c la im

form s. He pre se nts c onc lusory argum e nts, fa ils to c ite re le v ant c a se la w, a nd doe s not show how the c la ss wa s pre

j udic e d by the a lle ge d de fic ie nc ie s. None of his a rgum e nts re ga

rding these ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts ha

ve m e rit. 2. Andre ws c o nte n ds the distric t c ourt c om m i tte d re v e rsible e rror by not a ddre s sing his obje c tions to the se c ond-round se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts in its orde r a pproving those

se ttle m e nts. Andre w s file d his obje c t ions with a

n im prope rly notic e d m otion to unse a l re c ords, whic h like ly c a use d the distric t c ourt a

nd Ha ge ns B e rm an to ove rlook the m .

“ To survivea

ppe lla te re vie w, the distric t c ourt . . . m ust givea re a sone d re sponse to a ll non-friv olous obje c tions.” Alle n v . Be d olla , 787 F.3d 1218, 1223–24 (9th C ir. 2015) (e m pha sis a dde d) (quoting De n n is v . K e llogg C o. , 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C ir. 2012)). B e c a use Andre ws’ s obje c tions to the se c o nd-round 5se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts we re frivolous, the distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to a ddre ss the m

wa s not e rrone ous. AFFIRM E D.

6