In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust ( 2016 )

15-217(L) In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 10th day of August, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE 15-217 (Lead) 13 AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST 15-234 (Con) 14 LITIGATION, 15-519 (Con) 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 16 17 FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN J. PENTZ, Sudbury, MA. 18 JOSHUA R. FURMAN, Joshua R. Furman 19 Law Corp., Sherman Oaks, CA. 20 21 FOR APPELLEES: K. CRAIG WILDFANG (Thomas J. 22 Undlin, Ryan W. Marth), Robins 23 Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; H. 24 Laddie Montague, Merrill G. 25 Davidoff, Michael J. Kane, Berger 26 & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, 27 PA; Patrick Coughlin, Joseph David 1 1 Daley, Alexandra Senya Bernay, 2 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 3 San Diego, CA; Joseph Goldberg, 4 Freedman Boyd Goldberg Urias & 5 Ward, P.A., Albuquerque, NM. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 8 for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J.). 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 11 DECREED that the appeal from the judgment of the district court 12 be DISMISSED as moot. 13 14 Appellants, class members who objected to a proposed 15 settlement and request for fees, appeal from the judgment of 16 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 17 New York (Brodie, J.) granting service awards to class 18 representatives. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 The settlement in question was the subject of an appeal 22 before another panel of this Court. In re Payment Card 23 Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 24 12-4671-cv(L). The Court in that appeal vacated certification 25 of the class action, reversed the approval of the settlement, 26 and remanded for further proceedings. Therefore, this appeal 27 concerning class representative service awards is moot. 28 Accordingly, we hereby DISMISS as moot the appeal from the 29 judgment of the district court. 30 FOR THE COURT: 31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 2