Renfrew

Renfrew v. Toms

Good Law
109 F. App'x 143
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 2004No. 02-17386California457 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

As an initial matter, “a non-party who is enjoined or otherwise directly aggrieved by a judgment has standing to appeal the judgment.” Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir.1992). Because the TSC/Class Settlement bars (i.e., “enjoins”) the Toms Family from asserting both (1) its “direct” claims as ESOP participants against Sierra and the ESOP Administrative Committee, and (2) its indemnity/contribution claims against these same parties, the Toms Family has standing to appeal. Also, this appeal has not been rendered moot, because the multiple settlements on appeal have not affected the Toms Family’s objections to the settlement bar.

The Toms Family lodges three specific objections to the settlement approval at issue in this case: (1) the district court should have permitted them to depose Paul Ainslie, the forensic accountant on whom Trustee Renfrew relied in gauging the value of the TSC stock, (2) a Daubert hearing should have been held, and (3) an evidentiary hearing was appropriate.

*146 The district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before approving the settlement. Instead, all that was required was that “each…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.