A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd t he appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
D A V I D H E L L E R , i ndi vi dual l yand on behal f of a l l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. QUO VAD X, I NC. ; LORI NE R. SW EENEY ; a n d GA RY T. S CH E RP I NG, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees,

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WI L L I AM S . KAR N, A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 1110 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - c v - 0 0 6 6 5 - R P M)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LUCERO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es.- 2 -

W i l l i am S . K arn, an att or neyr epr es ent i ng hi m s el f, appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ct c o u rt’s d e n ial o f

h is o bjec tio n to a se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t in a c las s a c tio n su it i nvol vi ng Q uovadx, I nc. , of w hi ch M r . K arn i s a s har ehol der . B eca us e w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatM r . K arn l acks s t andi ng t o obj ectt o t he s et t l ement , and beca us e M r . K arn’ s fi l i ngs befor e the di s t r i ctcour tand thi s cour tfai l t o i dent i fy anyr el evantevi dence orl egal author i t ys uppor t i ng hi s var i ous t heor i es about c l a s s a c t i o n l i t i g a t i o n , we a ffi r m. * * * O n A p ril 5 , 2 0 0 4 , D a v id H e ller b ro u g h t su it ag a in st Q u o v a d x a n d tw o o f its offi cer s , L or i ne R . Sw eene yand G aryT . Scherpi ng, on behal f of a l l open- m ar ket p u rc h a se rs o f

Q u o v a d x sh a re s d u rin g th e p e rio d f ro m O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 to M arch 15 , 20 04 . M r. H el l er al l eged t hat defend ants had i ntent i on al l yi ssued fals e and m i sl eading financial st at em ents du ri ng t hat per i od i n aid of Q uo vad x’s cas h and s t ock ac qui s i t i on of R ogue W ave Softw ar e. T he l i t i gat i on pr ocee ded w i t h t he t ypi cal m ot i ons and fi l i ngs i nvol ved i n s uch cl as s act i on s har ehol ders ui t s , and eventual l yt he part i es ent er ed i nt o s et t l ementdi s cus s i ons . I n N ovember2006, t he par t i es came t o an agr eementand fi l ed a s t i pul at i on of s et t l ement , and M r . H el l er fil ed an u n o p p o sed m o ti o n fo r co u rtap p rov al of the s ett lem en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt s ubs equent l ygr ant ed pr el i m i naryappr oval , s chedul ed a fai r nes s hear i ng, and ordered no t i ce of

t he p roposed set t l em ent t o all cl ass m em bers.- 3 -

O n D ece m ber28, 2006, M r . K arn fi l ed an obj ect i on t o t he s et t l ement– t he onl yobj ect i on l odged byanypar t yagai ns tt he pr opos ed s et t l ement . A l t hough M r . K arn purpor t s t o be a Q uovadx s har ehol der , he does notcl ai m t o be a mem ber of the cl as s of s har ehol der s r epr es ent ed byM r . H el l er( t hos e w ho pur chas ed sh are s b etw ee n O ctob er 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 an d M arc h 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 ). In h is objecti o n , M r. K arn es s ent i al l yar gued thatt he defendantcorpor at e off i cer s , and nott he corpor at i on i t s el f, s houl d have t o payanys et t l ementorj udgm entfort he al l eged harm t o t he cl as s m ember s . M r . K arn fol l ow ed hi s obj ect i on w i t h a numberof m ot i ons i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , as ki ng, among ot hert hi ngs , t hatt he courtchar ge the p a r t i e s i n t h e s u i ta n d t h e i rc o u n s e l wi t h v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e S h e r ma n Ac t , 1 5 U. S . C. § 1 (i l l egal r estrai nts of tr ade), t hat the co urtrul e on t he co nst i tuti on al i t yof class act i on l aw s ui t s w r i tl ar ge, and thatt he courtal l ow M r . K arn t o fi l e l i t i gat i on d o c u m e n ts b yp o stin g th e m o n h is w e b site a n d a n n o u n c in g th e p o stin g b ye m a il t o t he co urtand otherpart i es. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed al l of M r . K arn’ s m ot i ons butpos tponed rul i ng on hi s obj ect i on t o t he s et t l ement unt i l t he fa i r nes s hear i ng, s chedul ed for February23, 2007. A tt he fa i r nes s hear i ng, t he courtdeni ed M r . K arn’ s obj ect i on and gr ant ed fi nal appr oval of the pr opos ed s et t l ement . O n February26, 2007, t he cour ti s s ued a w r i t t en or derdeny i ng M r . K arn’ s obj ect i on, ci t i ng as i t s r eas ons : 1) M r. K arn di d n ot “i den t i fyanypu rchases of Q uo vad x st ock w i t hin the clas s p eriod an d there fo re h as n o stan d ing to m ak e a n o bjecti o n ”; an d 2 ) M r. K arn ’s- 4 -

s t at ement s t o t he court“di d notcons t i tut e val i d obj ect i ons . ” Feb. 26, 2007, O r der D eny i ng Shar eow nerO bj ect i on. T he courtal s o or der ed thata s o- cal l ed “mem or andum of l aw ” – fi l ed byM r . K arn one daybefor e the fa i r nes s hear i ng – be s t r i cken f

r om t he r ecor d beca us e i t s cont ent s w er e “i r r el evant . ” Id. M r. K arn filed a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. * * * M r . K arn’ s appea l appar ent l yonl yconce r ns t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of sta n d in g fo r M r. K a rn ’s o bjec tio n . S p e c ifica lly , h e p re se n ts tw o q u e stio n s to th is c o u rt: 1 ) w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f sta n d in g v io late d h is F if th A m endmentr i ght s of due pr oces s ; and 2) w hethert he deni al of s t andi ng vi ol at ed t he Taki ngs C l aus e of the Fi fth A m endment . Foratl eas tt hr ee i ndepende nt r eas ons , w e affi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of M r . K arn’ s obj ect i on t o t he p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t. Fi r s t , w e affi r m beca us e M r . K arn fai l s t o appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s econd, ind ep en d en t gro u n d fo r de n y ing h is objecti o n – n am ely , it s co n clus ion that M r. K a rn , s ta n d in g o r n o s ta n d in g , s im p ly d id n o t r a is e a n yv a lid o bje c tio n . See Me tzg e rv . UN UM L i

f e In s . Co . o

f A m. , 476 F. 3d 1161, 1168 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) (affirm ing b ec au se a p p ell an t did n o t cha ll en g e o n ap p ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s “se co n d , ind ep en d en t gro u n d ” fo r j u d g m en t) . Second, w e affi r m beca us e w e agr ee thatM r . K arn i ndeed l acke d s t andi ng to o bjec t to th e p ro p o se d se ttl e m e n t. R u le 2 3 (e )(4 ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il- 5 -

Pr ocedur e pr ovi des onl yt hat“cl as s m ember [s ] m ayobj ectt o a pr opos ed s et t l ement . ” A s s uch, “non- cl as s m ember s have no s t andi ng t o obj ect. . . . ” G ould v. A l l eco, Inc . , 8 8 3 F . 2 d 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 (4th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). Itis un d ispu ted th at M r. K a rn is n o t a c las s m e m b e r in th is s u it, o r a t lea st h e h a s n e v e r p re se n ted to th is cour tort he di s t r i ctcour tanyevi dence s ugges t i ng m ember s hi p, and ther efor e he has no s t andi ng t o obj ectunderR ul e 23. R ather , “[i ] nt er j ect i on of the oppos i ng vi ew s of non- cl as s m ember s [s uch as M r . K arn] s houl d pr ocee d vi a i nt er vent i on underR ul e 24. ” Id. M r . K arn has neverat t empt ed t o i nt er vene, nordoes he pr es entt o us anyevi dence orar gum ents ugges t i ng t hathe w oul d qual i fyfor in te rv e n tio n u n d e r R u le 2 4 . T h ird , an d fin a lly , w e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt b e c a u se M r. K a rn p re se n ts no evi dence orr el evantl egal ar gum entt o s uppor thi s cont ent i ons t hats uch a d e n ia l o f

s ta n d in g v io la te s th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. See Phi l l i ps v. Hi l l cr es tMed. C tr. , 2 4 4 F .3 d 7 9 0 , 8 0 0 n .1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ B e c a u se a p p e llan ts h a v e fa iled to s uppor tt hi s [ar gum ent ] w i t h anyauthor i t y , l egal orot herw i s e, w e nee d not co n side r i t. ”). In ste a d o f p ro v id in g th is c o u rt w ith c a se c itatio n s to su p p o rt h is appea l , M r . K arn s pends t he bul k of hi s br i ef not i ng t he i neff i ci enci es and bur dens of pape r - bas ed l i t i gat i on and advoc at i ng t he adopt i on of el ectr oni c fi l i ng s y s t ems. W e do notdoubtt hatt echnol ogi cal i nnovat i on pr es ent s gr eat oppor tuni t i es fort he j udi ci ary . B utw e di s agr ee w i t h M r . K arn t hatt he curr entA p p e llee s’ m o tio n to d ism iss is d e n ied a s m o o t. 1 - 6 - pr ocedur al r equi r ement s w i t h w hi ch he mustcompl ydepr i ve hi m orot her s of any c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . A f f i r m ed. 1

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge