James Syran v. Lexisnexis Group

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-55148, 10-55149 · 2011-10-07 · Unpublished

James SYRAN, Plaintiff, and Michael Cohen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEXISNEXIS GROUP, a Corporation; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees; Mark Witriol; Et Al., Plaintiffs, and Michael Cohen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lexisnexis Group, a Corporation; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: James S. Hawkins (author), Fletcher, Barry G. Silverman

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES SYRAN, No. 10-55148 Plaintiff, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00909-LAB- CAB and MICHAEL COHEN, MEMORANDUM * Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEXISNEXIS GROUP, a corporation; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

MARK WITRIOL; et al., No. 10-55149 Plaintifs, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02360-LAB- CAB and

MICHAEL COHEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 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 ** 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).

2 10-55148 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 10-55148