Case Explained: In re TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 Docket: 3:07-cv-05634-CRB The ninth-circuit dismissed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s orders overruling objections to the administration of a secondary distribution of settlement funds from an antitrust class action. The court applied de novo review for Article III standing and abuse of discretion review for the approval of the settlement distribution. The court dismissed the appeal by David Gould for lack of standing because he failed to establish an injury in fact, noting that his theory regarding audit costs lacked evidence linking the cost to the audits and that correcting prior distribution errors did not dilute his share. The court affirmed the denial of Jeanette Stevens, trading as Elm Co.’s objection, holding that she had standing but that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her claim because Rust Consulting acted within its authority to verify claim validity and Elm Co. failed to respond to requests to verify its undocumented claim. The practical consequence is that Gould’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, while the district court’s approval of the distribution plan as applied to Elm Co. is upheld. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.