AIRLINES’ $40M ANTITRUST DEAL UNFAIR, NINTH CIRCUIT HEARS APPEAL
June 16, 2017
On April 21, 2017 Anna St. John of the Competitive Enterprise Institute objected to a $39.5 million settlement ending antitrust claims in multidistrict litigation against Société Air France, S.A. (Air France). The original suit was brought in 2007 against several airlines, among them Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines, and Continental Airlines, alleging that they fixed the fares on long-haul trans-pacific flights to Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.
St. John argued to a Ninth Circuit panel that the settlement unfairly lumped the claims of customers who bought the tickets through travel agents with those who purchased directly from the airlines. She stated that U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer made a legal error by failing to evaluate the strengths of the different claims as required by the Ninth Circuit’s 2003 Churchill Village decision and that of the US Supreme Court’s 1999 Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. ruling which supported the premise that limited fund class actions are not appropriate for to litigate many unliquidated tort claims. She asked that subclasses be created with separate representatives to independently advocate in the interests of the different groups. The appeal also requested the court to consider a separate class for Japan Airlines travelers whose city of origin was abroad rather than domestic, arguing they siphoned money from domestic travelers.
Class counsel Christopher L. Lesbock cited the Third Circuit’s 2010 Sullivan v. DB Investments case and said that the Ninth Circuit found that such issues were left to the discretion of district court judges. The Court will consider Ms. St. John’s argument and a ruling has not been made as of May 24, 2017.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com, 202-659-6622) or (dderco@eckertseamans.com, 202-659-6665).
Share This Post
Authors
