15-217(L) In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of August, two thousand sixteen.

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 Circuit Judges.

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE 15-217 (Lead) AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST 15-234 (Con) LITIGATION, 15-519 (Con) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN J. PENTZ, Sudbury, MA.

18 JOSHUA R. FURMAN, Joshua R. Furman 19 Law Corp., Sherman Oaks, CA.

21 FOR APPELLEES: K. CRAIG WILDFANG (Thomas J.

22 Undlin, Ryan W. Marth), Robins 23 Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN; H.

24 Laddie Montague, Merrill G.

25 Davidoff, Michael J. Kane, Berger 26 & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, 27 PA; Patrick Coughlin, Joseph David

1 Daley, Alexandra Senya Bernay, 2 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 3 San Diego, CA; Joseph Goldberg, 4 Freedman Boyd Goldberg Urias & 5 Ward, P.A., Albuquerque, NM.

7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J.).

10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal from the judgment of the district court be DISMISSED as moot.

14 Appellants, class members who objected to a proposed settlement and request for fees, appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, J.) granting service awards to class representatives. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

21 The settlement in question was the subject of an appeal before another panel of this Court. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 12-4671-cv(L). The Court in that appeal vacated certification of the class action, reversed the approval of the settlement, and remanded for further proceedings. Therefore, this appeal concerning class representative service awards is moot.

28 Accordingly, we hereby DISMISS as moot the appeal from the judgment of the district court.

30 FOR THE COURT: 31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK