In re: Telescopes Antitrust Litigation

Background

The court had granted final approval of a $32 million class-action settlement on April 11, 2025, overruling written objections from six objectors. Four other objectors—Pat Zhen, Mike Sussman, Karla Luna on behalf of National Woodlands Preservation, Inc., and Elman Barnes—filed a joint appeal without lawyers. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) asked the court to require each objector to post an appeal bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.

An appeal bond is security that may be required to help ensure payment of appeal costs if the appeal is unsuccessful. IPPs requested $42,818 in continued class-administration costs and $175 in taxable appeal costs from each objector. Zhen separately moved for a protective order after IPPs filed exhibits containing his unredacted personal information. Those documents were later removed from the public docket after the court granted IPPs’ motion to remove them.

Appeal-Bond Analysis

The court considered three factors: the objectors’ financial ability to post a bond, the risk that they would not pay appeal costs, and the likelihood that they would lose the appeal. Sussman claimed that he could not afford the requested bond, but he provided no evidence supporting that claim and did not appear at the hearing. The court treated the financial-ability factor as neutral for Sussman and found it favored a bond for the other objectors.

The court found that the risk of nonpayment favored a bond for Sussman, Zhen, and National Woodlands Preservation, Inc. because the opinion states that they reside outside California and outside the Ninth Circuit. Barnes was the only objector identified as residing in California. The court did not decide IPPs’ contested arguments about fraud and frivolous claims, finding that the other two factors were sufficient.

The court also concluded that the objectors were unlikely to prevail on appeal because their objections had been thoroughly considered and rejected. Barnes had challenged the paper claims process, the system for providing claim numbers, and a waiver under California Civil Code section 1542. Sussman raised similar objections and also argued that the notices did not explain how and where to object. National Woodlands Preservation, Inc. objected that the claim form lacked a field for an entity name. Zhen argued that the settlement excluded purchases made in Puerto Rico and improperly required Puerto Rico purchasers to give up rights without consideration. The court stated that the settlement did not bind Puerto Rico purchasers, that Zhen had not purchased telescopes in a covered state, and that he likely lacked standing to appeal.

Bond Amount and Disposition

The court held that a Rule 7 bond may cover taxable appeal costs and expenses allowed by an applicable fee-shifting statute, but may not include delay damages. It rejected the requested $42,818 in settlement-administration costs because IPPs identified no applicable fee-shifting statute authorizing those costs. The court found $300 to be a reasonable estimate of taxable costs, including printing, copying, and mailing expenses.

The court therefore GRANTED IN PART IPPs’ motion for an appeal bond and imposed a $300 bond jointly and severally on the objectors. Within 14 days after entry of the order, the objectors had to either file and serve proof that they satisfied the bond requirement or file a notice dismissing their appeal.

The court DENIED Zhen’s motion for a protective order. To the extent the motion sought removal of the improperly filed documents, that request was moot because the documents had already been removed. The court found a requested declaration that class counsel had reviewed the relevant privacy rule unnecessary. The court also TERMINATED as moot IPPs’ motion concerning whether to seal a declaration about alleged fraud.