Today we filed our response brief; plaintiffs largely ignored the arguments we made earlier and instead made ad hominem complaints about some quotes that I gave a legal newspaper—when they weren't simply lying about what relevant Third Circuit precedent said.
All well and good, except that my particular notice letter arrived on June 28. That's because, though the settlement occurred on April 28, and the court approved notice on May 11, the parties didn't bother to ask brokers to provide a list of shareholders until June 1, and then, after receiving the list, didn't bother to mail the notice to tens of thousands of shareholders until June 22 or June 23.
CCAF filed its reply brief in the Bluetooth case yesterday.
Earlier this month, plaintiffs and defendants each filed appellees' briefs defending the district court's approval of the Bluetooth settlement against our appeal. We'll be filing our reply brief later this week; stay tuned.
Today, the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an objection on behalf of four class members, including one who gets nothing despite water leakage into the passenger compartment that required over $1000 of repairs.
Our appeal has drawn attention from the National Law Journal, Overlawyered, Bob Dorigo Jones, California Civil Justice, Hans Bader, and AetherCzar. It was previously covered in Forbes.
Today, we filed our Ninth Circuit appellate brief in the Bluetooth case, No. 09-56683.
$1.87 million in attorneys' fees for a worthless settlement will not be collected; Judge Vaughn Walker denied settlement approval.
The court's opinion is not quite a rubber-stamp of the defendants' proposed order and opinion, but it's pretty close.
$1.87 million in attorneys' fees for a worthless settlement will not be collected; Judge Vaughn Walker denied settlement approval.