Go to the Source
At the end of our appellate brief (viewable at http://www.muchnick.net/AppealBrief.pdf), the objectors seek eight specific points of relief. We ask the Second Circuit to hold:
1. That the settlement approval was an error of law because the class representative did not have the authority to grant a license of class members’ copyrights.
2. That class certification was an abuse of discretion because the settlement makes significant allocation decisions between the holders of registered and unregistered copyrights and the class representatives are holders of registered copyrights.
3. That approval of the settlement as fair was an abuse of discretion, as a matter of law, because the C Reduction, the C Category compensation structure, and the abandonment of scientific/medical works are unquestionably unfair and unreasonable.
4. That the dismissal of claim for scientific/medical works violated Rule 23(e) because the district court made no finding that such a dismissal was fair and the district court did not order, or even consider, a notice to those class members.
5. That certification of the class was an abuse of discretion because the submission of a settlement that denied any compensation to claims for scientific/medical works, while releasing those claims, and the subsequent dismissal of those claims, demonstrate that the class representatives are inadequate.
6. That preliminary approval of the settlement without evidence of settlement adequacy and the requirement of personal appearance as a condition for objecting were denials of Due Process.
7. That the lack of district court analysis prevents review under the abuse of discretion standard.
8. That if the case is remanded for further proceedings regarding this settlement the objectors may have discovery concerning the settlement negotiations, the methodology of the damage study, and the mediator’s compensation.