Case Name: IN RE: TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Donald Wortman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amy Yang, Objector-Appellant, v. Societe Air France; Malaysian Airline System Berhad; Singapore Airlines Limited; Vietnam Airlines Company Limited; Japan Airlines Company, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-26
Citations: 701 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 15-16280
Parties: IN RE: TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Donald Wortman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amy Yang, Objector-Appellant, v. Societe Air France; Malaysian Airline System Berhad; Singapore Airlines Limited; Vietnam Airlines Company Limited; Japan Airlines Company, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 701
Pages: 554–557

Head Matter:
IN RE: TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Donald Wortman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amy Yang, Objector-Appellant, v. Societe Air France; Malaysian Airline System Berhad; Singapore Airlines Limited; Vietnam Airlines Company Limited; Japan Airlines Company, Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16280
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 21, 2017 San Francisco, California
JUNE 26, 2017
See also, 854 F.3d 606.
Joseph W. Cotchett, Elizabeth Tran, Steven N. Williams, Esquire, Adam J. Za-pala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, Michael D. Hausfeld, Christopher L. Lebsock, Michael P. Leh-mann, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA, Gary Ivan Smith, Jr., Esquire, Hausfeld LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Theodore H. Frank, Anna W. St. John, Washington, DC, for Objector-Appellant.
James Robert Warnot, Jr., Esquire, Linklaters LLP, New York, NY, David Senior, Ann-Kathryn Tria, McBreen & Senior, Los Angeles, CA, Ashley M. Bauer, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Megan Dixon, Robert Brian Hawk, Esquire, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Kenneth P. Ewing, Steptoe' & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LOGAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Steven Paul Logan, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Amy Yang ('Wang") appeals the grant of Donald Wortman's motion for final approval of eight class action settlement agreements with Defendants-Appel-lees. We review for abuse of discretion. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
1. The district court properly certified the settlement class and was not obligated to create subclasses for purchasers of U.S.-originating travel and direct purchasers of airfare. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) does not require a district court to weigh the prospective value of each class member's claims or conduct a claim-by-claim review when certifying a settlement class. See Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 823 (9th Cir. 2012) (reasoning that it would be "onerous" and "impossible" to attribute a specific mone tary value to each of the class members' asserted claims).
Yang argues that purchasers of foreign-originating travel and indirect purchasers of airfare should not be entitled to an equal pro rata share of the settlement funds, in light of Illinois Brick and the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a (barring claims arising out of foreign injury); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 728-29, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977) (providing that only customers who purchase directly from defendants may recover under federal antitrust law). But, at the time of settlement, Defendants-Appellees had not raised these affirmative defenses, and the district court had not ruled on them. Subclasses may not be created "on the basis of speculative" conflicts of interests. In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 942 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 305 (3d Cir. 2011) (establishing that "a district court has limited authority to examine the merits when conducting the [class] certification inquiry").
2. The settlements provided sufficient notice to class members under Rule 23. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), 23(e)(1), & 23(e)(5). Potential class members were notified of the opportunity to opt out or object to the settlements no later than thirty-five days before the fairness hearing. While the class membership period has remained open for the duration of this appeal, "the class as a whole" was given sufficient notice to "flush out whatever objections might reasonably be raised to the settlements]." Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). Indeed, Defendants-Appellees implemented a comprehensive ' notice program that has reached approximately eighty-percent of potential class members in the United States, and at least seventy-percent in Japan.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.