ARABELLA LEMUS V. H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES, INC., No. 13-16628 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARABELLA LEMUS, No. 13-16628 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03179-SI v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL SINGH MADAR, Objector - Appellant, v. H&R BLOCK ENTERPRISES, INC., a Missouri corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Paul Singh Madar appeals pro se from the district court’s order disallowing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). his claim against a class action settlement fund. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases, 565 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 1977). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing Madar’s claim to a portion of the settlement where Madar’s claim was not timely received, and Madar “made no showing that [his] claim was treated in a fashion inconsistent with those of other claimants similarly situated.” Id. (“In reviewing the court’s exercise of its discretion, we are not to substitute our ideas of fairness for those of the district judge in the absence of evidence that [she] acted arbitrarily[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 13-16628
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
