SMF2+

Appellate => Litigation => Overground => Topic started by: Pastuh on July 06, 2020, 06:13:01 PM

Title: Request for Confirmation of "any, at least one"
Post by: Pastuh on July 06, 2020, 06:13:01 PM
{
Translation from Russian into English
of the Transcribed text of the request
       originally in verbal form in Russian language.
}

Case No. 16-md-02752-lhk,
"Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation",
United States District Court Northern District of California
San Jose Division,
Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge.


Dear Honorable Judge Lucy H. Koh,


Document 357 (Filed 01/30/19), page 8:
"II. LEGAL STANDARD
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that
 "[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled . . .
  only with the court's approval." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
 "The purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the unnamed members of the class
  from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights."
  In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).
  Accordingly, in order to approve a class action settlement under Rule 23,
  a district court must conclude that the settlement is
  "fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable."
  Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).
 Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class
 is appropriate if
 "[1] the proposed settlement appears to be the product
      of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,
  [2] has no obvious deficiencies,
  [3] does not improperly grant preferential treatment
      to class representatives or segments of the class,
  and [4] falls within the range of possible approval."
 In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
 (citing Manual for Complex Litigation (Second)  30.44);
 see also In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK,
          2014 WL 3917126, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014)."

The fulfillment of conditions [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]
    are adjoined under the logic "AND"
    to provide the appropriateness of the Preliminary approval
                       of a settlement and notice to the class.

Hence the Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the class
is not appropriate if "any of conditions, at least one condition"
                       is not fulfilled,
particularly, if ~any of the obvious deficiencies,
                  at least one obvious deficiency~
              is revealed by the court
                 or is disclosed by any of humans,
                          at least by a one human.

Document 357, page 8, 9:
"III. DISCUSSION
 The Court denies the motion
 for preliminary approval of class action settlement
 on several bases.",
"Any of these bases
 would be sufficient to deny the motion for preliminary approval."

In spite of the fact that any of those bases
were (and are) sufficient to deny the motion for preliminary approval -
the Honorable Judge still denied the motion
    for preliminary approval of class action settlement
    on several bases by the one common Order,
instead of, for example, adopting six separate Orders,
                         each on basis of only one base.
In result, judging on comparison
of the PROPOSED ORDER 330-16 and the PROPOSED ORDER 369-15,
the attorneys of Plaintiffs and the attorneys of Defendants,
together as soon as they agreed within the Settlement Agreement
                                       with all its Exhibitions, -
badly understood the meaning of the word "any"
                  in sense ~any, at least one~,
and continued deceiving the Honorable Judge
    that conditions for submitting the reasonable objections
         from any litigant in the Class Litigation,
         where "at least one class member
         is a citizen of a state different from Defendants
         and is a citizen of a foreign state."
         (SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, item 16,
         https://yahoodatabreachsettlement.com/en/Home/GetDocument/?documentName=Second%20Amended%20Consolidated%20Class%20Action%20Complaint.pdf),
    were ostensibly provided equally for all Settlement Class Members
                             (numbered by item 14(1) of the Order 390),
                    including the PSEUDO-SHARPERs,
                    speaking Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic, Russian,
                    in coordination with the Document 369-6 Filed 04/09/19
                       Declaration of Jeanne Finegan,
                       not published on the Settlement Website.

In reality item 1.47 of the Document 369-2 Filed 04/09/19
AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
in English language
declares:

""Settlement Website" means a website
  established by the Settlement Administrator
  to provide information about the Settlement
             and permit the submission of claims.
  At a minimum, the following information
  shall be posted on the Settlement Website:",
  "this Settlement Agreement",
  "The Settlement Website, in addition to being in English,
   will contain translations in Spanish and Hebrew."

but the Settlement Website does not contain the translations
                                of ~this Settlement Agreement~,
        i.e. translations of the Document 369-2 Filed 04/09/19
             in Spanish and Hebrew,
        and equally does not contain the translations
                             of ~this Settlement Agreement~
                             in Arabic and Russian.

Instead, the simulacrums of mixtures of translations
of the Document 330-3 Filed 10/22/18 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
with the extractions of translation of some another file
were uploaded to the Settlement Website up to July 4, 2020.

Table of Contents (page i) of the uploaded translations
in Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic and Russian
prove that the specified parts of the listed translations
correspond to the Document 330-3 Filed 10/22/18.

At least this one proof for each of translations
is sufficient for concluding that the translations
do not refer to the Document 369-2 Filed 04/09/19
       which has been promised to be published on the Settlement Website
             in accompany with its translations
             without substitutions of its translations
             by translations of other files
                from a number of similar documents, but outdated, -
by a PSEUDO-SHARPER, reading the corresponding translation in his language.

Hence, there were no public proper translations
             of the Document 369-2 Filed 04/09/19
       on the Settlement Website,
       which could be reasonably objected to or agreed with
                 by the PSEUDO-SHARPERs in Class Litigation,
because those translations have been denied by the Order 357
        together with the denied Document 330-3 Filed 10/22/18
                                 in English language edition.

Having no another choice than to rely on a probability
       that the significant parts of the translations
            of the outdated SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
            will repeat, in essence, the translations
            of the AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
                   once the latter will be uploaded in a next tour
                   of acquainting of the population of the Earth
                   with the proper translations
                   of the corresponding edition of the next AGREEMENT
                   and searching for sources of possible objections
                                         to the proper translations,
                                    mostly from the PSEUDO-SHARPERs, -
I tried to provide the awareness of the Lead Settlement Class Counsel
        (item 1.23 of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
                                       in Russian language)
regarding the existence of the disputable questions to him
          on base of his obligation defined by item 1.10
             of the uploaded translation of the outdated
                        SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE -
but yet without a visible result.

Therefore some questions, which the Lead Settlement Class Counsel
                          failed to reply
          and will fail to reply via the Mediation of the Honorable Judge, -
are addressed to the Honorable Judge, naturally, too.

Hereby I request the Honorable Judge
to obtain from the Lead Settlement Class Counsel
by a Court request via e-mail,
the file with the image of the copy of document
         with the text of the e-mail message
         with the translation from Russian into English
               of the transcribed request of a human
               (originally in verbal form in Russian language)
         with subject "Request for Copies of Documents",
         having been sent on December 11, 2019
         to Mr. John A. Yanchunis
            via the e-mail address jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
            ( https://www.yahoodatabreachsettlement.com/en/Home/GetDocument/?documentName=Declaration%20of%20John%20Yanchunis%20ISO%20Prelim%20Approval.pdf ),
and the file with the image of the copy of document
        with the text of the e-mail message
        of Mr. John A. Yanchunis having been sent
        in reply to the corresponding request
                    with the specified subject,

the file with the image of the copy of document
         with the text of the e-mail message
         with the translation from Russian into English
               of the transcribed request of a human
               (originally in verbal form in Russian language)
         with subject "Request for Mediation",
         having been sent on June 21, 2020
         to Mr. John A. Yanchunis
            via the e-mail address jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
and the file with the image of the copy of document
        with the text of the e-mail message
        of Mr. John A. Yanchunis having been sent
        in reply to the corresponding request
                    with the specified subject,

afterwards, if it will happen that the reply message
                            of Mr. John A. Yanchunis
            will be successfully delivered
                    to the e-mail address of the Honorable Judge, -
to request for the answer to the question:
   "When will the files with the proper translations
    of the Document 369-2 Filed 04/09/19
           AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
           in Spanish and Hebrew and Arabic and Russian
       or, otherwise, in any language, at least one of the listed,
    be uploaded to the Settlement Website -
    for providing at least a minimal opportunity
    to begin composing the reasonable objections
             to the AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
         and suggestions either to amend or to change
             the AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
       for the PSEUDO-SHARPERs,
           perceiving the corresponding language
?".

If the Honorable Judge will clarify
       in result of requesting and inquiring
that any of requests of Pastuh, at least one,
     were not replied by Mr. John A. Yanchunis
          within a reasonable period,
     or at least one of requests of the Honorable Judge
                 will remain without the reply delivered, -
then I request for changing
                   at least one Lead Settlement Class Counsel
               without preliminary amending him
       as many times as many requests
          the Lead Settlement Class Counsel remained without reply
              in contradiction to item 1.10
              of the uploaded translation of the outdated
                         SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
                       at least in one language - Russian.


Anyway please send the files obtained from Mr. John A. Yanchunis
and a copy of his reply to the question,
or otherwise Your reply to the same question, -
to the predefined channel of confidential communication.

The attorneys of the MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
could Mediate to Mr. John A. Yanchunis
therefore afterwards I request for
the file with the image of the copy of document
         with the text of the e-mail message
         with the translation from Russian into English
               of the transcribed request of a human
               (originally in verbal form in Russian language)
         with subject "Request for a responsive attorney",
         having been sent on December 11, 2019
         to Jake David Sternberge
            via the e-mail address jsternberger@forthepeople.com,
and the file with the image of the copy of document
        with the text of the e-mail message
        of Jake David Sternberge having been sent
        in reply to the corresponding request
                    with the specified subject,

the file with the image of the copy of document
         with the text of the e-mail message
         with the translation from Russian into English
               of the transcribed request of a human
               (originally in verbal form in Russian language)
         with subject "Request for Copies of Documents",
         having been sent on December 12, 2019
         to Mr. John Morgan
            via the e-mail address jmorgan@forthepeople.com,
and the file with the image of the copy of document
        with the text of the e-mail message
        of Mr. John Morgan having been sent
        in reply to the corresponding request
                    with the specified subject,

the file with the image of the copy of document
         with the text of the e-mail message
         with the translation from Russian into English
               of the transcribed request of a human
               (originally in verbal form in Russian language)
         with subject "Request for Mediation",
         having been sent on December 12, 2019
         to Ultima Morgan
            via the e-mail address umorgan@forthepeople.com,
and the file with the image of the copy of document
        with the text of the e-mail message
        of Ultima Morgan having been sent
        in reply to the corresponding request
                    with the specified subject.

Till now negotiations between the Parties
were not fully informed
at least about one obvious deficiency
specified in this request.

Thank you.