Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Second Circuit "punts" in Blessing v. Sirius

| No Comments

The Second Circuit upheld the settlement approval in Blessing v. Sirius XM in a non-precedential ruling Thursday. The Second Circuit refused to analyze the objections on appeal, holding that the perfunctory and conclusory statement of the district court that it had "considered the[] oral and written submissions" of the objectors was enough to survive abuse-of-discretion review. This contradicts the Ninth Circuit, which requires a "reasoned response" to objections; how do we know whether the district court abused its discretion when there is nothing in the record explaining why it rejected particular objections? The Court also bootstraps reasoning why it need not consider whether the district court erred in failing to apply CAFA standards to the settlement, contradicting the Seventh Circuit.

On top of signing off of a settlement that literally made class members worse off (my client would have overpaid Sirius by $200 if he had accepted the coupon relief instead of better offers available to class members), the Second Circuit refused to address whether Judge Baer's demand of particular racial composition of class counsel was illegal, holding the lack of proof of injury ended the inquiry. This contradicts the Supreme Court's holding that racial bias in court proceedings is per se injury, and we will seek further review. [Reuters via Bashman]

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.