Case: 15-2206

Document: 003111979307

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/02/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 15-2206, 15-2217, 15-2230, 15-2234,

15-2272, 15-2273, 15-2294

IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

PLAYERS CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION
______________________________________________
APPELLANTS: CRAIG HEIMBURGER AND DAWN HEIMBURGER,
CLEO MILLER, et al., CURTIS L. ANDERSON,
DARREN R. CARRINGTON, RAYMOND ARMSTRONG, et al.,
LIYONGO PATRISE ALEXANDER, et al., and WILLIE T. TAYLOR

REPLY OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND TO EXPEDITE APPEALS
Class Plaintiffs-Appellees (Plaintiffs) respectfully submit this Reply in
further support of their motion to consolidate and expedite the various related
appeals.1 Specifically, they address the respective oppositions filed by the Miller
Appellants, Appeal No. 15-2217 [Doc. No. 003111975010] and the Armstrong
Appellants, Appeal No. 15-2272 [Doc. No. 003111977879].2 We note that no

Since this motion was filed, the following additional appeals were docketed:
Appeal Nos. 15-2290, 15-2291, 15-2292, 15-2304, and 15-2305.
2
The Faneca Appellants (No. 15-2304) also filed a response to Plaintiffs Motion,
but they agreed that the appeals should be consolidated and expedited. They

Case: 15-2206

Document: 003111979307

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/02/2015

appellant opposes consolidation of all appeals filed by the Objectors to the

settlement. Those who opposed Plaintiffs Motion opposed only the expedited
briefing schedule proposed therein.
There is no reason why the Miller Appellants should require until midAugust to prepare a brief addressing issues which were fully addressed in the
extensive briefing before the district court. The Armstrong Appellants do not
suggest an alternative due date for appellants briefs. They simply contend that six
weeks is insufficient.
The Miller Appellants also argue for a protracted briefing schedule,
contending that it is necessitated by their counsels commitments in another matter.
The reality of this case is that there are many Objector-Appellants, but the
underlying appeals concern a billion-dollar settlement affecting some 20,000
retired professional football players, many of whom are seriously ill. Counsel who
initiate appeals have an obligation to act with some measure of celerity. This
appeal should take priority.

disagreed only with the appellees request that in exchange for agreeing to file
single briefs in response to the many appellants briefs, that appellees be afforded
longer length briefs.
2

Case: 15-2206

Document: 003111979307

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/02/2015

The Miller Appellants agree to forego the Fed. R. App. P. 33 mediation

process, but the Armstrong Appellants do not.3 We submit that the instant appeal
is not the type of appeal that the Appellate Mediation Program was designed to
address and we have found no reported decision in which a circuit court directed
mediation of an objectors appeal from a certified class action settlement, let alone
the appeals of numerous objectors. The settlement that is the subject of these
appeals was reached in this case through mediation and the involvement of a
Special Master. An additional layer of compulsory mediation at this stage, after
that settlement was thoroughly vetted by the district court, in order to placate a
number of Objector-Appellants and their counsel would do nothing other than
further delay the resolution of this matter.
We decline to address herein the Miller Appellants misunderstanding of
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).4 The Amchem decision and
other substantive arguments will be addressed in full in the briefing.
In short, nothing in the two Oppositions warrants denial of movants request
for an expedited schedule. Further delay of the Class members receipt of the
valuable benefits provided by the settlement is unwarranted.

Presumably, the Armstrong Appellants are referring to this Courts Appellate

Mediation Program, adopted under the authority of Fed. R. App. P. 33. See 3d Cir.
R. 33.0-33.6.
4
The Armstrong Appellants also allude to an alleged Amchem problem with the
Settlement.
3

Case: 15-2206

Document: 003111979307

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/02/2015

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in the opening
motion, this Court should consolidate all related appeals, set an expedited
schedule, and hear this matter as soon as practicable.
Dated: June 2, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christopher A. Seeger
Christopher A. Seeger (NY 2425304)
David R. Buchanan
TerriAnne Benedetto
Diogenes P. Kekatos
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 584-0700
Fax: (212) 584-0799
cseeger@seegerweiss.com
Co-Lead Class Counsel
Sol Weiss
ANAPOL SCHWARTZ
1710 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-1130
Fax: (215) 735-2024
sweiss@anapolschwartz.com
Co-Lead Class Counsel
Samuel Issacharoff
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012
Phone: (212) 998-6580
Fax: (212) 995-4590
Si13@nyu.edu
4

Case: 15-2206

Document: 003111979307

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/02/2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Christopher A. Seeger, hereby certify that on the 2nd day of June 2015, I
electronically transmitted a true and correct copy of the foregoing document,
REPLY OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES IN FURTHER SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND TO EXPEDITE APPEALS, to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice
of Electronic Filing to all attorneys of record who are ECF registrants. I also
certify that on said date one copy of the aforementioned document was served by
UPS overnight delivery upon the Pro Se Appellant, listed below.

Darren Carrington
14097 Montfort Court
San Diego, CA 92128
Pro Se
/s/ Christopher A. Seeger
Christopher A. Seeger