James Syran v. Lexisnexis Group, a corporation;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES SYRAN,
Plaintiff,
and
MICHAEL COHEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEXISNEXIS GROUP, a corporation; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55148
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00909-LAB-
CAB
MEMORANDUM*
MARK WITRIOL; et al.,
Plaintifs,
and
MICHAEL COHEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 10-55149
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02360-LAB-
CAB
FILED
OCT 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for issues**
regarding the terms of the settlement agreement. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
10-55148 2
LEXISNEXIS GROUP, a corporation; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011***
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
untimely motion to modify the terms of arbitration under a class action settlement.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s
enforcement of a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. Callie v. Near,
829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cohen’s motion
because Cohen neither objected to the terms of the settlement nor appealed from
the judgment settling the class action in a timely manner. See Gendron v. Shastina

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55148 3
Properties, Inc., 578 F.2d 1313, 1314-15 (9th Cir. 1978) (appellant who failed to
perfect a timely appeal from a judgment settling a class action is “precluded from
challenging the . . . fairness of the agreement”).
Contrary to appellees’ contention, the district court’s order was final and
appealable. See United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, 56 F.3d 1181, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (discussing finality rule in context of post-judgment
orders).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --