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 : LITHIUM ION B ATTERIES ANTITR UST LITIGATION,

------------------------------ INDIREC T PUR C HASER PLAINTIFFS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL FR

ANK B EDNAR

Z, Obje c tor-Appe lla

nt, v. PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION; PANASONIC C O RPOR

A TION OF NOR TH AM ERIC A; SANYO ELEC TRIC C O, LTD; SANYO NOR TH AM ERIC A C ORPOR ATION; HITAC HI, LTD.; HITAC HI M A XW ELL, LTD.; M AXW ELL C ORPOR

A TION OF AM E R IC A; TOSHIB AC ORPOR ATION; TOSHIB A AM ERIC A ELEC TR ONIC C OM PONENTS, INC .; NEC No. 17-17367 D.C . No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR M EM O R ANDUM * 

# F IL ED

SEP 16 2019 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.C ORPOR

ATION; SAM SUNG SDI C O. LTD.; SAM SUNG SDI AM ERIC A, INC . ; SONY C ORPOR

ATION; SONY ENER G Y DEVIC ES C ORPOR ATION; SONY ELEC T R O NIC S, INC . ; NEC TOKIN C ORPOR

ATION; LG C HEM , LTD.; LG C HEM AM ERIC A, INC .,

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 Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 28, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. The distric t c ourt c e rtifie d a nationwidese ttle m e nt c l a ss a nd a pprove d se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts be t we e n Indire c t Purc ha s e r Pla intiffs (“ IPP” ) an d de fe nda nts LG C he m , Lim ite d; LG C he m Am e ric a , Inc orporate d; Hita c hi M a xe ll, Lim ite d; M a xe ll C orporation of Am e ric a ; a nd NEC C orporation. Thedistric t c ourt a pprove d IPP’ s pla n t o distribute

the se ttle m e nt fund pro ra ta to se ttle m e nt c la ss m e m b e rs, re ga rdle ss of whe the r the ir c la i m (s) arose in Illinois Bric k re pe a le r or non-re pe a le r state s. M ic ha e l B e dna rz , a n obje c ting c la s s m e m

be r, a ppe a ls. In the c onte xt of a

c la ss-a c tion se ttle m e nt, a distric t c ourt m ust give

“ undilute d, e ve n he i ghte ne d, atte ntion” to R ule 23’ s re quire m e nts be c a u se the 2c ourt “ will la c k the opportunity . . . to a d just thec la s s, inform e d by the proc e e dings a s the y unfold.” Amc he m Prods., Inc . v . W indsor , 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). Whe n a c la ss-a c tion se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt is ne gotia t e d prior to c la ss c e rtific ation, we rigorously e nforc e R

ule 23’ s proc e dura l re quire m e nts. Alle n v . Be dolla , 787 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th C ir. 2015). “ To survivea ppe lla t e re vie w, the distric t c ourt m ust show it ha s e xplore d c om pre he nsive ly

a l l fa c tors, a

nd m u st givea re a sone d re sponse to a ll non-frivolous obje c tions.” Id. at 1223–24 (quoting De n n is v . K e llogg C o. , 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C ir. 2012)) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om i tte d). He re , the distric t c ourt did not e xpla in why a nationwidec la ss should be c e rtifie d a nd a pro rat a distribution pla

n a p prove d de spite substa

ntia l diffe re nc e s in sta te la w be twe e n re p e a le r and non-re pe a le r sta te s. The fina l a

pprova l orde r m e re ly pa ra phra s e s R ule 23 a nd c onc lude s tha

t the R ule ’ s re quire m e nts a

re m e t. Sim ila rly , the distric t c o urt sum

m arily ove rrule d

B e dna rz ’ s obje c tions, finding “

the se ttle m e nt, a

nd the pro rata

a l loc ation a

m ong se ttle m e nt c la ss m e m be rs, fa ir a

nd a de quate de spite the se diffe re nc e s [in sta te la w] .” The distric t c ourt’ s a

na ly sis of R

ule 23’ s re quire m e nts wa s c ursory , a s wa s its ove rruling of B e dna

rz ’ s Illinois Bric

k obje c tions. A more fulsom e an a ly sis is re quire d. This is e s pe c ia lly true give n the distric t c ourt’ s sugge stion in a pre vious 3orde r de ny ing c e rtific at ion of a nationwidec la ss tha

t C a lifornia ’ s Illinois Bric k re pe a le r la

wlike ly would not a

pply to c l a ss m e m

be rs from non-re pe a le r sta

te s. Our c onc e rns a

re a lso m a gnifie d by

the distric t c ourt’ s re c e nt a pprova l of a

nothe r se t of se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts whosedistribution pla n s spe c i fic a lly

a c c o unt for the diffe re nc e be twe e n re pe a le r and non-re pe a le r sta te s. W e e xpre s s no opinion on whe the r the re pre se ntation, se ttle m e nt c la ss, a nd se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts sa

tisfy R ule 23. Inste a d, we “ va c ate and re m and to a llow the d istric t c o urt to prope rly e xe rc ise its disc re tion” c onsiste nt with R ule 23’ s rigorous proc e dura l re quire m e nts. In reBlue tooth He adse t Prods. Liab. Litig. , 654 F.3d 935, 950 (9th C ir. 2011). W e V ACAT E the distric t c ourt’ s fina l a pprova l orde r and RE M A ND for furthe r proc e e dings. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l.

4