Embry v. ACER America: A Case Study in Objector Delay

Posted on 4 January 2016.

This 2012 case regarding ACER’s claims to include complete Windows software in their personal computers is instructive of the kinds of delays that serial objectors can impose on settlements. Final Approval was granted on February 14, 2012 and the appeals were not fully resolved (by voluntary dismissal) until October 2, 2012. What makes this delay on the more impressive was that Serial Objectors Christopher Bandas and Joseph Darrell Palmer (working together with Palmer representing Bandas) were able to delay this long without ever filing an OPENING BRIEF.

Objector Bandas and Attorney Palmer filed their appeal on March 12, 2012, without paying the filing fee. Two weeks later, the Court filed an order requiring them to correct this within 21 days. The Bandas-Palmer team paid the filing fee on the 21st day of this period. Following the reinstatement of the appeal, which was stricken for failure to pay the filing fee, the Bandas-Palmer team then proceeded to file a motion for a month extension to file the opening brief, moving the due date back from August 6 to September 7. At the end of August, the District Court finally grew tired of waiting for Bandas and Palmer to pay the appeal bond of $70,650. Judge Ware sanctioned them and ordered the payment of the bond. Bandas and Palmer continued to defy the orders of the District Court, attempting to appeal the bond order and the sanctions order to the Appellate Court. Once the District Court moved to further sanction the two, Bandas and Palmer voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

Serial Objecting Attorney Sam P. Cannata also filed objection and appeal, which he abandoned when the Court granted the appeal bond.