Varnum Response Motion To Dismiss

Case: 21-1041 Document: 41-1 Filed: 03/04/2021 Page: 1 (1 of 34)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1041
THE SHANE GROUP Inc.; et al
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
ADAC AUTOMOTIVE, et al
Objectors-Appellees
v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN
Defendant-Appellee,
CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Objector-Appellant.
___________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
No. 2:10-cv-14360-DPM-MKM
____________________________________________________
OBJECTOR-APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO EXPEDITE APPEAL
Page 1 of 20
This case encapsulates Murphy’s Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Mr. Miller’s eighteen page document is a one sided, desperate, misleading,
mudslinging, mirage of disinformation campaign which continues to blame this
Objector-Appellant for their years long egregious errors made throughout this case.
Let’s deconstruct his waste of word wasting all of our times’ document and show
why this case should not be dismissed or the appeal expedited.
The Objector-Appellant is acting under the doctrine of “De oppresso liber” or
“to liberate the oppressed” because the rights of up to seven million Michigan class
members continue to be violated by the following phrase being continually ignored
in this case,“ Primum non nocere” or "first, do no harm”.
. Summary
In this appeal, the lack of standing of all the named plaintiffs again means the
lower court lacked jurisdiction to approve the Varnum deal. The still pending
motion for disqualification means it’s not a final order under §1291 but the courts’
can’t go back and fix that now. A missing/destroyed filing, which is obstruction of
justice, is part of the record. The entire class has not received notice of the revised
Varnum double cross settlement that made material changes to the approval after
being remanded by this circuit. Since the class was not noticed we did not have the
opportunity to be heard so I/we the class could not file new and supplemental
Page 2 of 20
claims like Varnum’s 5000 clients were allowed to do, a crystal clear violation
under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. All of the above directly
affected the erroneous approval of the Varnum settlement to the detriment of the
class which the court ignored. Briefing is where all these the meritorious issues and
due process violations in this appeal need to be addressed, not dismissed here
which would cover up reward bad behavior and misconduct.
The Six Year Long Ad Nauseam False Extortion Claim.
As far as accepting payment to drop this or the other appeal, his claim is blatantly
false. Under Rule 23(e)(5)(B) the appellant cannot accept any payment unless this
court first agrees to allow him to drop the appeal. Then the district court has to
hold a hearing and agree as well. The appellant has a policy of not accepting any
money unless he can improve the settlement for the benefit of a class, even a
million dollars. Anytime over the past six years Mr. Miller could have sent me a
written agreement that I would not drop the objections or any appeals for money if
that was a real concern, but he chooses not to. His past actions and inactions speak
louder than his pontificating words.
The False Lack Of Standing Argument
Mr. Miller’s filing was brought about by a seven line email I sent to him that is
partially repeated in the Civil Appeal Statement and repeated below.
Page 3 of 20
My developing petition to the Supreme Court regarding the first settlement has
three possible questions to present, I have to select two of them. They are not
meritless or frivolous by any stretch and I do have a well qualified attorney that is
willing to take the case after obtaining a green light.
The potential questions requiring reversal of the affirmance that directly affect this
appeal at the Supreme Court in the erroneously affirmed deal are issues involving:
1. Clear lack of standing/jurisdiction at both the district court and Sixth Circuit
which conflicts with all other circuits.
2. That approval is clearly not a final order under §1291, with conflicts with that
statute and all circuits.
3. Incentive bounty awards. Even the reduced amount and the lack of any
documentation as to how they were calculated make them bounties, a prize to be
won, a conflict with existing Supreme Court case law and one other circuit.
THE FALSE CLAIM THAT THE ORDER FROM THE LOWER COURT IS
NOT A FINAL ORDER AND THIS APPELLANT LACKS STANDING
Courts of appeals have authority to review only “final decisions” of the district
courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a rule designed to prevent “piecemeal” adjudication,
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 (1977).
Page 4 of 20
A final order ends litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to do but execute the
judgment. Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989). This
is a final decision.
After Mr. Miller read my email that contains 1, 2 and 3 above, he now has the
incorrect idea that this court has no jurisdiction in this appeal because the claims
process has not been completed. Mr. Miller is well aware that the distribution
process of claims in this case has nothing to do with whether this is a final order or
not, it clearly is final. If not, the 14,000 class actions that have settled in federal
and state courts around the country the past two decades are all illegal, they are
not. Mr. Miller wants to be the first to change that in this case to solely avoid a
dismissal in the end. After six years, class counsel and court have no claims data to
share with the class, wow. This appellant is in an appeal right now where there
have been ten claim updates. That court is doing its job and not being a rubber
stamp and apparently does not have any financial connection/conflict with the
defendant like in this case. This is one big face saving cover up so I won’t be
allowed to win at all costs, I already won.
Here are additional meritorious issues with this Varnum deal taken from his notice
of appeal. The evidence above and below clearly does not warrant dismissal but
rather an investigation before the briefing schedule is set which I now request.
Page 5 of 20
The Varnum Settlement Unfairly, Unreasonable, Inadequately And Secretly
Reduces Existing Claimants Damage Amounts Without Proper Notice
On August 21, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
entered an order dismissing both the Varnum Group Appeal and the Class Counsel
Appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to this Court for the following sole
reason:
“The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to the district court
for what we anticipate will be a prompt decision on the remaining issue of
Varnum’s fee award.” Dkt 389 pg 3.
Without good cause or good cause shown, the parties and court, unilaterally and
without notice to the class, made material changes to the existing settlement that
they had no legal right to make by intentionally failing to inform the entire class of
what is in essence a double cross settlement and failing to inform the Sixth Circuit
of this fact as well in their status report, a lie by omission. (19-2260 Dkt. 54). This
is the second lie by omission to the Sixth Circuit in this case by Class Counsel. The
abdication of responsibility in this settlement is causing adverse consequences for
the existing claimants and the seven million Michigan class.
Class Counsel emailed a copy of the “Proposed Order Approving Varnum
Settlement” to this appellant at 4:15 pm on December 09, 2020 which was six
business hours before the settlement hearing on December 10, 2020 which did not
Page 6 of 20
provide any amount of reasonable time to adequately prepare a written response
which could not have been delivered in time before the hearing and there was
certainly not enough time to adequately prepare for an oral argument presentation.
The proposed order should have been filed as a motion and put on the public
docket and was not, but rather sent as a word document directly to the court,
bypassing court rules regarding ex part communications which kept it secret from
the public and class to prevent scrutiny of it.
The parties acquiesced to the Varnum’s demands by allowing claims that are
twenty five months late to be counted as timely. (November 08, 2018 to December
10, 2020). The parties are also arranging for Varnum’s clients only to file new and
supplemental claims for the next forty seven days (From December 10, 2020 to
January 29, 2021). There was no cause and no good cause shown why the
participants thought allowing twenty six month old late claims should be counted
as timely and why supplemental and new claims should be allowed to be only filed
by Varnum’s clients only without proper notice. Allowing both types of claims to
be filed reduce this appellant’s as well as the other existing claimant’s damage
reimbursement amounts without providing us the opportunity to respond.
The class has a right under due process to be heard by being noticed, file
comments, objections, file supplemental, new claims like Varnum’s 5000 clients
were allowed to do and be given the opportunity to opt out but can’t because a
Page 7 of 20
notice plan is missing violating Rule 23 and due process. Clearly I am being
shortchanged as well as the other up to seven million class members but my/our
damages being reduced by additional claims being filed unbeknownst to us.
Class Counsel and named plaintiffs are also choosing not to implement a notice
program to the up to seven million member class to save themselves another $1.2
million in notice costs out of their slowly shrinking attorney fee in addition to
saving the unknown increased administrator costs that are going to be incurred.
Class Counsel, not the class, is, for the second time, going to pay for this $1.2
million curative notice and costs just like the appellant stated they would do the
first time,...six years ago and now it will be done for a second time. See Manual for
Complex Litigation, Fourth, Pg 269 Note 752, Pg 317 second to last paragraph, Pg
321 second to last paragraph Notes 917, 919, 921.
From https://public.resource.org/scribd/8763868.pdf
Total savings to date for the class in this case is $1.6 million not counting the new
notice costs. ($37 millionish overall in all class actions to date).
Mr. Miller sent me a “Proposed Order Approving Varnum Settlement” on
December 09, 2020 that is not on the docket and was only sent to me and no other
class members. (Exhibit 3). The approved order is at, Dkt 396. That hearing was
not for this motion at all but rather for “Joint MOTION Plaintiffs' and BCBSM's
Page 8 of 20
Joint Motion for Oral Argument on Limited Issue Remanded to This Court by the
Sixth Circuit at ECF Nos. 389-390 by All Plaintiffs. (Miller, E.) oral argument.”
Instead it turned into a unnoticed, double cross, rubber stamp approval of the
Varnum deal without noticing and holding a hearing for the entire class to
comment on violating due process. Upon receiving the attached proposed motion,
(Exhibit 3) the appellant filed a response to the ghost “Proposed Motion Approving
Settlement With Varnum Group” via certified mail, Exhibit 1 within the fourteen
day window to respond but the court ignored that rule, did not allow for responses
and rushed through its decision four days later on December 14, 2020 to benefit
it’s donor benefactor, Blue Cross and Class Counsel. Doc 396.
The appellant’s response does NOT appear on the docket but is located two pages
further down this document. The filing was “lost” aka destroyed.
Just a month ago this appellant raised the due process violating lack of notice in
another class action and the court wisely ordered re-notice to the class. (Exhibit 2)
That re-notice to all the class members just entered my email box yesterday.
The Claims Part Of The Class Website Is Closed So The Rest Of The Class
Class Can’t File A Claim
Even if the participants can claim the seven million claimants have been all noticed
telepathically about this settlement and new claims process, the class website
prohibits the submission of any claims online where the vast majority of already
Page 9 of 20
submitted claims came from because the claim submission part of the website has
been shut down for a long time now. Varnum’s clients have been able to file
claims with their counsel who submits them directly to Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan since December 10, 2020 and it’s now January 06, 2020 with the claims
period ending on January 29, 2021. (See Doc 57). What do lawyers have to do to
get fired around here, also get caught engaging in dirty tricks as well like…
This from the class website:
The deadline to file a claim in this matter was November 8, 2018. That deadline is now
passed and no further submissions will be accepted.
© 2014-2018 Epiq All rights reserved | | Version: 1.0.0.93 | Updated: 10/21/2020 6:31:40 PM
https://www.michiganhospitalpaymentslitigation.com/Home/Closed
See https://www.michiganhospitalpaymentslitigation.com/Home/Documents
Last seen December 25, 2020
This proposed settlement requires proper notice be given to the class and a hearing
under Rule 23(e)(2) be held. The powers that be at the lower court blocked a filing
from appearing on the district court docket which appears to be obstruction of
justice.
Obstruction of Justice
Under Title 18 U.S.C § 1519, federal law defines “obstruction of justice” as:
Altering, destroying, or falsifying records. There is also misleading conduct, which
is broadly defined as deliberately lying, making material omissions (leaving out
Page 10 of 20
facts crucial to a case), submitted false or misleading physical evidence, and other
schemes committed with the intent to mislead.
Exhibit 1 shows the Objector- Appellant’s filing below being served via certified
mail and it’s delivery to the court. Apparently the one pound four ounce filing was
“lost” or destroyed upon arrival, it violates due process, its fraud and criminal in
nature. This would require coordination amongst various parties.
Here is that missing/destroyed document that was sent in under the fourteen day
response deadline but the court approved the deal after waiting only four days, a
cover-up.
This illegal action intentionally makes the record incomplete to the benefit of
everyone except the class. The Objector-Appellant incorporates the missing filing
below into this response that should be on the docket, but it’s not, harming this
appellant’s due process rights. I want it found and placed on the lower docket
before briefing schedule starts so my due process rights are restored in this appeal.
Clerk of the Court
The United States District Court
For The Eastern District of Michigan
Southern Division
Page 11 of 20
U.S. Courthouse
231 W. Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Courtroom of Judge Denise Page Hood
Case No. 2:10-cv-14360-DPH- MKM
The Shane Group, Inc. etc. al
Plaintiffs
v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
Defendant,
RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER APPROVING VARNUM SETTLEMENT
Class Counsel emailed a copy of this “Proposed Order Approving Varnum Settlement”
to this appellant at 4:15 pm on December 09, 2020 which was six business hours
before the settlement hearing which did not provide any amount of reasonable time to
adequately prepare a written response which could not have been delivered in time
before the hearing and there was certainly not enough time to adequately prepare for an
oral argument presentation.
This proposed settlement is adverse to this appellant, all existing claimants and up to
seven million member class and should not be approved because it would be illegal.
Page 12 of 20
This proposed order should have been filed as a motion and put on the public docket
and was not, but rather sent as a word document directly to the court bypassing court
rules regarding ex part communications which keeps it secret from the public and class
making it an illegal submission. Upon receipt of the proposed order, the
Objector/Appellant sent an email to Class Counsel stating he had concerns and there
was no response. He then offered to meet and confer and still no response.
The proposed order makes material changes to the existing settlement that the parties
had no right to make by changing the claims and distribution process that were already
in place which was not part of the remand order by the Sixth Circuit. These changes
benefit Varnum’s clients at the expense of the existing claimants by reducing the
existing claimant’s damage reimbursement amounts without a hearing, our knowledge
or consent taking money out of our pockets.
The parties and court, unilaterally and without required notice to the class, chose to
hold a hearing and make a secret deal made behind the backs of the existing claimants
as well as the seven million member class and the Sixth Circuit by acquiescing to
Varnum’s and Appellees’ demands by allowing claims that are twenty five months late
to be counted as timely. (November 08, 2018 to December 10, 2020). The parties are
not only allowing those claims to be counted as timely, but they are also arranging for
Varnum’s clients only to file new and supplemental claims as well for the next forty
seven days (From December 10, 2020 to January 29, 2021).

Page 13 of 20
The huge, “Houston we have a problem” here settlement is the Appellees and named
plaintiffs are intentionally choosing not to notice the existing claimants and seven
million member class of these two new claim windows thereby prohibiting them from
participating in the process. Allowing both types of claims to be filed reduces this
appellant’s as well as the other existing claimants damage reimbursement amounts
without providing us the opportunity to respond to this one sided deal. We have a right
to be noticed, file comments, objections, file claims and be given the opportunity to opt
out but we can’t because a well thought out notice plan is missing, but the participants
see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
There was no cause and no good cause shown why the participants thought allowing
twenty six month old late claims should be counted as timely, why supplemental and
new claims should allowed thereby reducing claimants existing damage amounts is OK
without input from the negatively affected class members. It was really done to get this
deal so Varnum would drop their appeal.
Class Counsel and named plaintiffs are illegally choosing not to implement a notice
program because Class Counsel does not want spend another $1.2 million in notice
costs. In addition, they would have to pay for the unknown increased claims
administrator costs that are now going to be incurred.
Page 14 of 20
Class Counsel is paying for this next $1.2 million curative notice fee plus costs like last
time, see Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, Pg 269 Note 752, Pg 317 second to
last paragraph, Pg 321 second to last paragraph Notes 917, 919, 921.
From https://public.resource.org/scribd/8763868.pdf
There is nothing on the class website allowing for anyone to submit a claim online
where the vast majority of already submitted claims came from because the claim
submission part of the website has been shut down for a long time now. Varnum’s
clients have been able to file claims with their counsel who submits them directly to
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan since December 10, 2020.
Varnum’s clients have had a three week head start filing their claims but there is still a
lack of notice to the rest of the seven million member class notifying them of the
ability to file supplemental and new claims. The deadline to file a claim in this matter was
November 8, 2018. That deadline is now passed and no further submissions will be accepted.
© 2014-2018 Epiq All rights reserved | | Version: 1.0.0.93 | Updated: 10/21/2020 6:31:40 PM
https://www.michiganhospitalpaymentslitigation.com/Home/Closed
See https://www.michiganhospitalpaymentslitigation.com/Home/Documents
Last seen December 22, 2020
So, Class Counsel and named plaintiffs have, for a third time in six years, violated their
fiduciary obligations owed to the entire class as well as violating Rule 23(e)1, 2, 3, 4
with specificity, 23(e)(1)(b), 23(e)(1)(c) 23(e)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(g)(4), due process and
the Rules of Professional Conduct. This proposed settlement requires proper notice be
Page 15 of 20
given to the class and a hearing under Rule 23(e)(2). Right now the proposed order if
approved would be manifest error and abuse of discretion making it reversible error.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge.
Christopher Andrews, Pro se objector P.O. Box 530394 Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T. 248-635-3810 E. caaloa@gmail.com Dated December 22, 2020
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this day December 22, 2020 I mailed
two copies of this document (one is a chamber’s copy) to the Clerk of the Court via
first class certified mail to the address on page one with copies sent to class counsel,
defense counsel and counsel for the Varnum objectors via first class mail to the
addresses below.
Christopher Andrews, Pro se objector, P.O. Box 530394 Livonia, MI 48153-0394

T. 248-635-3810 E. caaloa@gmail.com
Attention; Daniel Hedlund
Gustafson Gluek Pllc
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Sherman & Sterling LLP
Todd Stenerson
401 9th Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004
Page 16 of 20
Perrin Rynders
Varnum LLP
PO Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
Proof of Service
On this day, January 07, 2020 the objector/appellant uploaded this Notice of Appeal
(along with a copy of his RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER APPROVING
VARNUM SETTLEMENT that was timely filed but still not on the docket, by
transmitting them to the Court electronically on the Clerk of the Court’s webpage
below that is been designated to accept pro se filings. They will be accepted as any
other electronic filing, Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(B).
(https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pagefunction=ProSeDocs)
The undersigned certifies that today he filed the foregoing with the U.S. District Court
which will send electronic notification to attorneys and others registered to receive
ECF filings. Entry on the docket by the clerk will be considered to be adequate service
on other electronic filers pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.25(c)(2).
/s/ Christopher Andrews
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T 248-635-3810
Email caaloa@gmail.com
.Pro se objector, non attorney
Page 17 of 20
Final Summary
The appellant requests the appeal not be dismissed nor expedited. The appellant has
multiple briefs and objections he is currently assembling and expediting this one
disadvantages this appellant and the up to seven million other class members. I hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge.
Dated March 05, 2021
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
T- 248-635-3810
Pro se Appellant, non attorney
Page 18 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The foregoing motion complies with this Court’s length limitations because it
contains 3663 words. This motion also complies with this Court’s typeface and
typestyle requirements because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced
typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times Roman font.
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
T- 248-635-3810
Page 19 of 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 05, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the temporary email box established by
this circuit CA06_Temporary_Pro_Se_Efiling@ca6.uscourts.gov which will send
notification of such filing to all filing users indicated on the Electronic Notice List
through the Court’s electronic filing system.
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
T- 248-635-3810
Page 20 of 20
Exhibit 1
EEE=EEEJraRIfTLEXELBfRE|c5E.
LAKELAND
9680 KRESS RD
LAKELAND, MI 48143-9998
(801)}275-8777
12/22/2020 12:28 PM
Pr()clllct Qtv Uni t Pr i ce

Pr. i ce
FirstTr,lass Mail® 1
Large Erivelope
Detroit, MI 48226
Weight: 0 lb 4.60 oz
Estimated Del ivery Dal.e
Sat 12/26/2020
ing#
70191640000067031746
Fir`st Class
Large Envelope
firand Rapids, MI 49501
W€31ght: 01b 1.60 oZ
Estimatecl Del i vei`'y Date
Sat 12/26/2()20
F-irsl:`-Class Mai l® 1 $1. 20

Large Envelijpe
Washington, DC 20004
Weight: 01b 1.50 oz
Estimated Del ivery Date
Mon 12/28/2020
First-Class Mail® 1 $1, 20

L.argo Envelope
Mimeapolis, MN 55402
Weight: 0 lb 1.50 oz
---istfroted DeHvery__Date
Mon 12/28/2020
-- _ ` .-..---- i -'^ --.--..--. I -.,- I ,-.-- + -.--,-.- I ---.- V. -. _
r±r`anH Trltal. $8+95

USPS Tracking®
Tracking Number: 70191640000067031746
Your item has been delivered to an agent for final delivery in DETROIT, MI 48226 on January
5, 2021 at 3:22 pin.
Status
Delivered to Agent
January 5, 2021 at 3:22 pin
Delivered to Agent for Final Delivery
DETROIT, MI 48226
Tracking History
January 5, 2021, 3:22 pin

Delivered to Agent for Final Delivery
DETROIT, MI 48226
Your item has been delivered to an agent for final delivery in DETROIT, MI 48226 on January
5, 2021 at 3:22 pin.
December 31, 2020,11:02 am

Delivered
DETROIT, MI 48275
December 30, 2020, 10:49 am

Available for Pickup
DETROIT, MI 48275
December 29, 2020,1:36 pin

Available for Pickup
DETROIT, MI 48208
December 29, 2020, 9:25 am

Out for Delivery
DETROIT, MI 48226
December 29, 2020, 9:14 am

Arrived at Post Office
DETROIT, MI 48216
December 28, 2020

In Transit to Next Facility
December 27, 2020,11:59 pin

Departed USPS Regional Facility
DETROIT MI DISTRIBUTION CENTER
December 24, 2020, 8:49 pin

Arrived at USPS Regional Facility
DETROIT MI DISTRIBUTION CENTER
December 23, 2020, 12:32 am

Arrived at USPS Regional Facility
PONTIAC MI DISTRIBUTION CENTER
December 22, 2020, 2:33 pin

Departed Post Office
LAKELAND, MI 48143
December 22, 2020, 12:25 pin

USPS in possession of item
LAKELAND, MI 48143
Exhibit 2
CaseCase: 21-1041 Document:
3:10-mdl02143-RS 41-32956Filed:
Document 03/04/2021
Filed o1/20/21 Page:1 2
Page of 2 (26 of 34)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.10-md-02143-RS
MDL No. 2143
ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING RE

POTENTIAL NOTICE ISSUE
19 After the pending motions by counsel for the Indirect Purchasers and objector Corner
20 Erwinwerefiled,proseobjectorthristopherAndrewssubmittedwrittenobjections.SeeDkt.No.
21 2952. Although Andrews appealed the first two rounds of settlement approvals and is mentioned
22 in the Ninth Circuit's opinion, he appears to be contending he received no notice of the Ninth
23 Circuit decision, and that he leaned of it only in cormection with news reports regarding Erwin's
24 motion. Andrews also represents he is not "on Pacer, CM/ECF."
25 The objections Andrews states are largely a subset of those raised both in Erwin's motion
26 and in Erwin.s opposition to the pending fee motion. Andrews also complains, however, that he
27 and other members of the class have not been given adequate notice of developments in this action
28 through updates on the settlement website. He specifically requests that the Ninth Circuit decision
3:10-md-02143-RS 41-32956Filed:
Document 03/04/2021
Filed o1/20/21 Page:
Page 3 2
2 of (27 of 34)
1 and "any other filings Hagens Berman made relating to this $52 million fee issue" be posted to the
2 website "so this objector and class can respond to them in a legal and timely marmer."
3 While the class likely would not be entitled to notice of the Ninth Circuit's decision
4 standing alone, the "renewed" attorney fee motion may be different. Furthermore. even if it is
5 unlikely that Andrews will offer any objections to the motion not already presented by Erwin
6 and/or objector Barbara Cochran (See Dkt. No. 2947), it may not satisfy due process if he and
7 other class members are not given the opportunity to be heard.
8 Accordingly, within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel for the indirect purchasers
9 shall file a brief addressing what notice to the class is required, if any, when a "renewed" motion
10 for attorney fees is brought after a prior award has been vacated and the matter has been remanded
11 for further proceedings. In the event counsel concludes notice is required or that it at least would
be prudent under the circumstances, counsel should propose a timetable for such notice, any
objections, and any reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2021
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
CASENo.10|md-02143-RS
3:10-md-02143-RS 41-3
Document 2962Filed: 03/04/2021
Filed 02/01/21 Page:
Page 4 2
1 of (28 of 34)
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
No. 3:10-md-2143 RS (JCS)
ORDER PROVIDING
FURTHER CLASS NOTICE
3:10-md-02143-RS 41-32962Filed:
Document 03/04/2021
Filed 02/01/21 Page:
Page 5 2
2 of (29 of 34)
This matter comes before the Court on Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Brief on Further Class
1 Notice relating to attomeys' fees, Upon consideration thereof, this Court directs notice on the
2 following schedule :
4 Event Due Date
5 Supplemental Notice to Class on Attorney Fee Proceedings March 1 , 2021
6 Last Date for Notice Completion March 31, 2021
7 Objections or Other Responses April 30, 2021
8 IPPs' Reply to Objections or Other Responses May 14, 2021
9
The form of notice attached to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Brief on Further Class Notice
10
is hereby approved. The Court directs the notice administrator to disseminate this notice to the Class
11
by the same mechanisms as previously used (via direct notice to the class members for whom email
12
contact information is available with supplemented indirect notice through an internet advertising
13
campaign).
14
The Court will set a further hearing on this matter after its receipt and consideration of these
15
materials, should it deem necessary.

16
17
SO ORDERHD.
18
DATED: 2/1/2021
19
20
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
THE SHANE GROUP, INC. ET AL.,

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-14360-DPH-
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves MKM
and all others similarly situated,
vs.
Judge Denise Page Hood
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT WITH VARNUM GROUP

PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e)(5)(B)
WHEREAS, this matter has come before the Court by way of oral motion under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(5)(B) for approval of the Plaintiffs’ settlement with objectors ADAC Automotive,
Baker College, Borroughs Corporation, Eagle Alloy Inc., Floracraft Corporation, Four Winds
Casino Resort, Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn Inc., Gemini Group Inc., GillRoy's Hardware/Morgan
Properties LLC, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Huizenga Group, Kent
Companies Inc., Magna International of America, Inc., Master Automatic Machine Company
Inc., Petoskey Plastics Inc., SAF-Holland USA Inc., Terryberry Company LLC, Thelen Inc.,
Trillium Staffing Solutions, Truss Technologies, and Wade Trim Group Inc., (collectively, the
“Varnum Group”);
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2019, this Court entered two orders (ECF 364 and 365)
that (a) granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation (b)
granted Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and
Payment of Incentive Awards to Class Representatives, and (c) granted in part and denied in part
2
the Varnum Group’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (collectively, the “Settlement Approval
Orders”);
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Varnum Group appealed the Settlement Approval
Orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (ECF No. 371) (the “Varnum
Group Appeal”), and on November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs appealed the order granting in part
attorney fees to the Varnum Group (ECF No. 376) (the “Class Counsel Appeal”);
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
entered an order dismissing both the Varnum Group Appeal and the Class Counsel Appeal for
lack of jurisdiction and remanded to this Court for purposes of determining an appropriate fee
award to counsel for the Varnum Group (ECF No. 389);
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020, this Court entered the Stipulated Order Authorizing
Mediation of Varnum Group Objection and Motion for Attorney Fees before Paul Calico, Chief
Circuit Mediator, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (ECF No. 393);
WHEREAS, the parties and the Varnum Group also obtained the consent of the
Honorable Guy Cole, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to
continue mediation with Mr. Calico;
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the appellate briefing, the Settlement Approval
Orders, and conferences with Class Counsel and Mr. Calico, the Varnum Group has concluded,
notwithstanding their objections, (a) that the Settlement is in their best interest, (b) that the
Court’s rulings in approving the Settlement are correct and without error, (c) that the Settlement
should be implemented in accordance with the Court’s Settlement Approval Orders, and (d) that
further delay in distributing compensation to the Class should be avoided to the extent possible;
3
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs agree that the Varnum Group’s objections assisted in framing
the issues for consideration by the Court in connection with settlement approval under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e) and improved the settlement approval process by causing the unsealing of court
filings which assisted class members in analyzing the merits of the Settlement.
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, this Court held a hearing by video conference
whereby Class Counsel informed the Court that a settlement had been reached wherein: (a) Class
Counsel and defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) agree that, subject to
the Court’s approval, all claims submitted by January 29, 2021 (unless extended for good cause)
by class members, including members of the Varnum Group, shall not be rejected on the grounds
that they are untimely; (b) BCBSM agrees to timely provide reasonably available claims data as
needed by members of the Varnum Group to submit claims by January 29, 2021 (unless
extended for good cause), and Class Counsel agree to assist class members as needed in
submitting their claims; (c) counsel for the Varnum Group has reduced their attorney fee request
from in excess of $500,000 to $300,000, and Class Counsel will pay from their fee award
$300,000 to counsel for the Varnum Group within five business days of Class Counsel receiving
their fee award; no amount will be paid to counsel for the Varnum Group from the Settlement
Fund to avoid reducing the Class recovery or otherwise affecting class members; and (d) the
Varnum Group will withdraw all of their objections with prejudice within five business days of
entry of this Order (the “Varnum Settlement”); and
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the Varnum Settlement and is fully advised of its
terms and premises, and has considered the record of these proceedings, the representations,
arguments, and recommendations of counsel for the parties, and the requirements of law.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
4
A. The parties’ oral motion at the December 10, 2020 hearing for approval of the
Varnum Settlement, including the payment of $300,000 in attorney fees to the Varnum Group’s
counsel to be paid from Class Counsel’s fee award, is GRANTED.
B. Class Counsel shall pay counsel for the Varnum’s Group $300,000 within five
business days of Class Counsel’s receipt of their fee award in this case.
C. The Varnum Group’s motion for attorney fees and costs (ECF No. 342) is
DENIED as moot.
D. Within five days of entry of this Order, the Varnum Group shall withdraw all of
their objections to the Settlement with prejudice.
E. Any claims submitted by class members on or before January 29, 2021 (unless
extended for good cause) shall be considered timely and processed in accordance with the court-
approved plan of allocation and claim form (ECF 269-2). Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
shall timely provide reasonably available claims data as needed to assist members of the Varnum
Group in submitting claims. Class Counsel shall assist class members as needed in submitting
claims.
SO ORDERED this ___________ day of December 2020.
__________________________________
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Varnum Response Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Varnum Response Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 21-1041 Document: 41-1 Filed: 03/04/2021 Page: 1 (1 of 34)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

THE SHANE GROUP Inc.; et al

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN

On Appeal from the United States District Court

OBJECTOR-APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO EXPEDITE APPEAL

Mr. Miller’s eighteen page document is a one sided, desperate, misleading,

mudslinging, mirage of disinformation campaign which continues to blame this

why this case should not be dismissed or the appeal expedited.

The Objector-Appellant is acting under the doctrine of “De oppresso liber” or

members continue to be violated by the following phrase being continually ignored

in this case,“ Primum non nocere” or "first, do no harm”.

which would cover up reward bad behavior and misconduct.

The Six Year Long Ad Nauseam False Extortion Claim.

louder than his pontificating words.

The False Lack Of Standing Argument

partially repeated in the Civil Appeal Statement and repeated below.

willing to take the case after obtaining a green light.

which conflicts with all other circuits.

statute and all circuits.

documentation as to how they were calculated make them bounties, a prize to be

NOT A FINAL ORDER AND THIS APPELLANT LACKS STANDING

courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a rule designed to prevent “piecemeal” adjudication,

Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 (1977).

allowed to win at all costs, I already won.

The Varnum Settlement Unfairly, Unreasonable, Inadequately And Secretly

Reduces Existing Claimants Damage Amounts Without Proper Notice

for what we anticipate will be a prompt decision on the remaining issue of

Varnum’s fee award.” Dkt 389 pg 3.

abdication of responsibility in this settlement is causing adverse consequences for

the existing claimants and the seven million Michigan class.

Class Counsel emailed a copy of the “Proposed Order Approving Varnum

provide any amount of reasonable time to adequately prepare a written response

the public and class to prevent scrutiny of it.

reimbursement amounts without providing us the opportunity to respond.

damages being reduced by additional claims being filed unbeknownst to us.

321 second to last paragraph Notes 917, 919, 921.

notice costs. ($37 millionish overall in all class actions to date).

Mr. Miller sent me a “Proposed Order Approving Varnum Settlement” on

Class Can’t File A Claim

This from the class website:

passed and no further submissions will be accepted.

Last seen December 25, 2020

from appearing on the district court docket which appears to be obstruction of

Altering, destroying, or falsifying records. There is also misleading conduct, which

is broadly defined as deliberately lying, making material omissions (leaving out

schemes committed with the intent to mislead.

nature. This would require coordination amongst various parties.

Clerk of the Court

The United States District Court

For The Eastern District of Michigan

231 W. Lafayette Blvd.

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Courtroom of Judge Denise Page Hood

Case No. 2:10-cv-14360-DPH- MKM

The Shane Group, Inc. etc. al

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,

RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER APPROVING VARNUM SETTLEMENT

oral argument presentation.

making it an illegal submission. Upon receipt of the proposed order, the

existing claimant’s damage reimbursement amounts without a hearing, our knowledge

or consent taking money out of our pockets.