IN RE: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

IN RE: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Conner Erwin, Objector-Appellant, v. Panasonic Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Christopher Andrews, Objector-Appellant, v. Panasonic Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Barbara Cochran, Objector-Appellant, v. Panasonic Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Christopher Andrews, Objector-Appellant, v. Panasonic Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Conner Erwin, Objector-Appellant, v. Panasonic Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15065, No. 17-15067, No. 17-15143, No. 17-17436, No. 17-17439

Decided: May 15, 2020

Before: FARRIS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Steve Berman, Attorney, Hagens Berman, Seattle, WA, Jeff D. Friedman, Attorney, Shana E. Scarlett, Attorney, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, Kevin Kamuf Green, Attorney, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Timothy R. Hanigan, Lang, Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, Christopher Andres Bandas, Attorney, Robert Clore, Attorney, Bandas Law Firm, P.C., Corpus Christi, TX, for Objector-Appellant Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, NEC Corporation Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, Robert Bernard Pringle, Esquire, Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee NEC Corporation John F. Cove, Jr., Shearman & Sterling LLP, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Esquire, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc America, Inc., Sony NEC Optiarc, Inc. Craig Philip Seebald, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee Hitachi Ltd. Craig Philip Seebald, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC, Mark Samuel Popofsky, Attorney, Rocky Chiu-feng Tsai, Attorney, Ropes & Gray LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Objector Christopher Andrews appeals from the district court's orders approving settlement agreements in a consumer electronics class action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court's approval of the settlement agreements.¹

“A binding settlement must provide notice to the class in a ‘reasonable manner’ and otherwise be ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’ ” In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 567 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), (2)). “When the district court determines that a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable, our review ‘is extremely limited.’ ” Hyundai, 926 F.3d at 569 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998)).

1. Andrews challenges the settlement agreements on various grounds, including alleged deficiencies in the language of the settlement agreements, the settlement class periods, and the claim forms. He presents conclusory arguments, fails to cite relevant case law, and does not show how the class was prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies. None of his arguments regarding the settlement agreements have merit.

2. Andrews contends the district court committed reversible error by not addressing his objections to the second-round settlement agreements in its order approving those settlements. Andrews filed his objections with an improperly noticed motion to unseal records, which likely caused the district court and Hagens Berman to overlook them.

“To survive appellate review, the district court ․ must give a reasoned response to all non-frivolous objections.” Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218, 1223–24 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012)). Because Andrews's objections to the second-round settlement agreements were frivolous, the district court's failure to address them was not erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, we do not recount them here.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network