FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 16 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES No. 17-17369 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,

Objector-Appellant,

v.

PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; SANYO ELECTRIC CO, LTD; SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI MAXWELL, LTD.; MAXWELL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; NEC

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. CORPORATION; SAMSUNG SDI CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORPORATION; SONY ENERGY DEVICES CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.; NEC TOKIN CORPORATION; LG CHEM, LTD.; LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 30, 2019** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

In light of our disposition in Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Bednarz, No.

17-17367, vacating the district court’s approval of the settlement agreements,

Appellant Christopher Andrews’s challenges to the notice of settlement, the district

court’s approval order, and the settlement agreements are moot.

Andrews argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees

to class counsel. Because we vacated the district court’s order approving the

settlement agreements, we must also vacate the district court’s fee award, as that

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 award was “based upon the settlement agreements entered with Hitachi, NEC, and

LG Chem.”

We VACATE the district court’s fee award and REMAND for further

proceedings. The remainder of Andrews’s arguments are DISMISSED as moot.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

3