In re Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. Antitrust Litigation

Case # 07-cv-05107
Case Name In re Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. Antitrust Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for C.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to "fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of Passenger Airfares" between the United States and Korea (see Complaint, paragraph 4). As a result of this unlawful collusion, consumers paid non-competitive and artificially high prices for Airfare.

Final Approval Date 12/23/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Class counsel attempted to perform discovery on objectors, which was denied by the Court. However, the Court did require objectors to demonstrate class membership beyond affirming their membership. None of the objectors did so satisfactorily, leading the District Court to strike all objections for lack of standing.
  3. Objectors Nedlouf and Johnson both appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Class counsel motioned for an Appeal Bond, which was granted in the amount of $762 for each appellant.
  5. Both appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 08/04/2014
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Application to Perform Discovery on Objectors.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Application to Perform Discovery on Objectors.pdf
Order to Show Class Membership and Denying Application to Perform Discovery.pdf
Order Striking Objections for Lack of Standing.pdf
Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting In Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Stuart Johnson

Objectors Stuart Johnson
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Court must act to protect unnamed class members.
  2. Settlement-only class requires heightened scrutiny.
  3. Notice does not inform class members of their exact potential recovery.
  4. Coupon provisions require added scrutiny.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  6. Cy pres provisions are not adequately defined.
Attachments Objection of Stuart Johnson.pdf
Declaration of Stuart Johnson.pdf
Supplemental Declaration of Objector Stuart Johnson.pdf
Appeal of Objector Johnson.pdf
Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond (Johnson).pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Objector Johnson.pdf
Johnson Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Said Nedlouf

Objectors Said Nedlouf
Signers Brian C. Shapiro
Attorneys Brian C. Shapiro
Chester H. Arter, III
Summary
  1. Court must act to protect unnamed class members.
  2. Settlement-only class requires heightened scrutiny.
  3. Notice does not inform class members of their exact potential recovery.
  4. Coupon provisions require added scrutiny.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  6. Cy pres provisions are not adequately defined.
Attachments Objection of Said Nedlouf.pdf
Supplemental Declaration of Objector Said Nedlouf.pdf
Appeal of Objector Nedlouf.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal of Objector Nedlouf.pdf
Nedlouf Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated