In re: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, ------------------------------… v. CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
------------------------------
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,
Objector-Appellant,
v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION;
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
NORTH AMERICA; SANYO ELECTRIC
CO, LTD; SANYO NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION; HITACHI, LTD.;
HITACHI MAXWELL, LTD.;
MAXWELL CORPORATION OF
AMERICA; TOSHIBA CORPORATION;
TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
COMPONENTS, INC.; NEC
No. 17-17369
D.C. No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
SEP 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

CORPORATION; SAMSUNG SDI CO.
LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.;
SONY CORPORATION; SONY
ENERGY DEVICES CORPORATION;
SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.; NEC
TOKIN CORPORATION; LG CHEM,
LTD.; LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In light of our disposition in Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Bednarz, No.
17-17367, vacating the district court’s approval of the settlement agreements,
Appellant Christopher Andrews’s challenges to the notice of settlement, the district
court’s approval order, and the settlement agreements are moot.
Andrews argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees
to class counsel. Because we vacated the district court’s order approving the
settlement agreements, we must also vacate the district court’s fee award, as that
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

award was “based upon the settlement agreements entered with Hitachi, NEC, and
LG Chem.”
We VACATE the district court’s fee award and REMAND for further
proceedings. The remainder of Andrews’s arguments are DISMISSED as moot.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
3

-- 3 of 3 --