In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, JOSUE ROMERO v. BRIAN PERRYMAN, Objector -

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS
LITIGATION,
JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT;
KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY;
ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS;
BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER
LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN
WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
BRIAN PERRYMAN,
Objector - Appellant,
v.
PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT
GROUP, INC., a California corporation,
DBA Encore Marketing International;
ENCORE MARKETING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
No. 13-55373
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02094-AJB-
WVG
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM *
FILED
MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 19, 2015**
Pasadena California
Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges and MOTZ,*** Senior District
Judge.
This case is resubmitted as of the date of this order.
Objector-Appellant Brian Perryman appeals the district court’s approval of
the class settlement agreement reached by Defendant-Appellee Provide Commerce,
Inc., Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc., d/b/a Encore Marketing
International, and Plaintiffs-Appellees. Perryman contends that the district court
abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement and the attorney’s fee
award, because the $20 credit offered to the class was a coupon subject to the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1712. Perryman further contends that the district
court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

This case was originally set for argument on February 2, 2015. That
argument date was vacated, and submission was deferred pending resolution of
Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. On February 27, 2015, we decided Frank v.
Netflix (In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.), No. 12-15705, __F.3d __, 2015
WL 846008 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015). Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,
we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings
consistent with Frank. Because class settlement is a package deal that must “stand
or fall in its entirety,” we need not now address whether the district court abused its
discretion in approving the cy pres distribution. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150
F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to General Order 4.5(e), each party
shall bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --