FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY 15 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE No. 17-15065

PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:10-md-02143-RS ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CONNER ERWIN,

Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE No. 17-15067

PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:10-md-02143-RS ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,

Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE No. 17-15143

PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:10-md-02143-RS ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BARBARA COCHRAN,

Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2 In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE No. 17-17436

PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:10-md-02143-RS ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,

Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: OPTICAL DISK DRIVE No. 17-17439

PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

D.C. No. 3:10-md-02143-RS ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CONNER ERWIN,

3 Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 21, 2019 Submission Vacated January 24, 2020 Resubmitted May 8, 2020 Portland, Oregon

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

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.

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, we do not recount them here. 4 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

5 settlement agreements were frivolous, the district court’s failure to address them

was not erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

6