Ninth Circuit appeal in Bluetooth – reply brief
CCAF filed its reply brief in the Bluetooth case yesterday.
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.
Unlike the Bluetooth case, we were among several plaintiffs who filed substantive objections to this settlement.
Monday, I attended the fairness hearing for the Bluetooth MDL settlement. UCLA math professor and client Henry Towsner was in the audience. Dozens of people filed objections with the court, but, aside from the CCAF objection, only 12 of those successfully navigated the procedural maze to file a "valid" objection. Out of those, we were the only ones to cite precedent in favor of our objection. And we were the only…