IN RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Subramanian
- 1:21-cv-05906
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In re Carlotz, Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Subramanian granted the objectors’ motion insofar as it updated the docket to record their objections.
Xinbao Wang and Fen Wang, the two objectors appearing without lawyers; the corrected docket and the appellate record in their pending appeal were also affected.
What happened
In In re Carlotz, Inc. Securities Litigation, Xinbao Wang and Fen Wang asked the court to confirm that they were proper objectors to the settlement and to correct the docket. They said they had timely submitted written objections, but the docket did not contain a separate entry for them.
The objectors also said they could not speak at the June 10, 2025 fairness hearing because they did not receive updated remote-access information after the hearing was rescheduled. They asked the court to correct the record because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had requested clarification during their appeal.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion insofar as the docket was updated to reflect that Fen and Xinbao Wang were objectors. The court recorded their timely objections at docket entries 186-1 and 186-2 and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- IN RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05906
- Subramanian
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
Xinbao Wang and Fen Wang, appearing without lawyers, filed a motion seeking clarification of their status as objectors to a proposed class-action settlement and correction of the docket. They asserted that they mailed and served written objections by the May 20, 2025 deadline and served the Clerk, lead settlement counsel, and defense counsel.
The objectors stated that they had told lead counsel they intended to participate remotely in the fairness hearing. After the hearing was rescheduled to June 10, 2025, they said they received no updated dial-in instructions or other remote-access information, and that no such information appeared on the settlement website. They therefore could not join the hearing or speak. According to the motion, the Court nevertheless identified them by name on the hearing record, acknowledged their objections, and stated that it would overrule them while granting final approval of the settlement, attorneys’ fees, and service awards.
The Court entered a final approval order on July 7, 2025. The objectors said that order did not identify them by name and that their written objections had not received separate docket entries. They further stated that they filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 2025, after which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requested clarification because the docket did not show a standalone objection filing.
Requested Relief and Arguments
The objectors relied on authorities concerning the appellate standing of timely settlement objectors and the district court’s authority to correct or supplement an appellate record so that it accurately reflects what occurred. They argued that the missing docket entry was a clerical or ministerial omission, not a change to the substance of the final approval order. They asked the court to recognize them as timely, proper objectors; docket their written objections as of the date received or annotate the docket to reflect their timely service and oral disposition; and transmit the clarification to the Second Circuit as a supplemental record.
Ruling
The motion was granted insofar as the docket had been updated to reflect that Fen and Xinbao Wang were objectors. The order states that their timely objections were docketed at Dkt. 186-1 and 186-2. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 209. The provided order does not state a separate disposition of any requested relief beyond that docket update.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.