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 the Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation. The court dismissed the appeal of David Gould for lack of Article III standing, applying the injury-in-fact requirement under *Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife*, because Gould failed to provide evidence that his pro rata share was actually reduced by the audits or claim corrections, and his request for prompt payment was moot as the distribution was complete. The court affirmed the denial of Jeanette Stevens’ (trading as Elm Co.) objection, applying an abuse of discretion standard to review the district court’s approval of the distribution plan. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Rust Consulting to audit and verify claim validity to ensure funds reached only qualified claimants, noting that Elm Co. was denied eligibility because it failed to respond to verification requests for an undocumented claim, and other arguments were forfeited for failure to develop them below. The practical consequence is that the secondary distribution plan remains in effect as approved by the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.