USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 65 of 82

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES’ MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND TO EXPEDITE APPEALS

Plaintiffs-Appellees (the “Class Plaintiffs”) respectfully move, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (3)(b)(2) and this Circuit’s Rule 12-2, for the

consolidation of the pending appeals, Nos. 22-13051, 22-13052, 22-13118, and 22-

13120 (the “Appeals”), and further move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a), Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, and this Court’s Internal Operating Procedure 27.3,

for expedited briefing and consideration of the Appeals. The Appeals are all from

the Final Approval Order and related orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama approving a historic and comprehensive settlement

(the “Settlement”) in this multi-district antitrust litigation. 1 The four Appeals were

filed by a small handful of objectors (out of the over 100 million members of the

damages and injunctive relief classes certified by the District Court), and they raise

similar or related challenges to the Final Approval Order and other orders relating

to approval of the Settlement. Consolidation, therefore, will significantly promote

1
See Final Order and J. Granting Approval of Subscriber Class Action
Settlement, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2406, 2:13-CV-
20000-RDP, Doc. 2931 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2022), attached hereto as Ex. A; Am. to
Final Order and J. Granting Approval of Subscriber Class Action Settlement
Relating Only to the Releases Provided by Opt-Outs, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litig., Doc. 2939 (Sept. 7, 2022), attached hereto as Ex. B; Order Awarding
Subscriber Pls.’ Counsel Att’ys’ Fees and Expenses, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litig., Doc. 2932 (Aug. 9, 2022), attached hereto as Ex. C.
1
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 66 of 82

judicial efficiency. There is also good cause to expedite the Appeals, for delaying

full implementation of the historic monetary and injunctive relief provided by the

Settlement will work a real and substantial injury not only upon tens of millions of

class members who neither objected to nor appealed from the District Court’s

decisions, but also upon the general public, by postponing the full implementation

of several structural reforms designed to promote competition in the national health

insurance marketplace.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2022, the District Court granted final approval to the Settlement,

which resolved antitrust claims asserted on behalf of approximately 100 million

class members against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (the “BCBSA”) and

its 36 Member Plans (referred to collectively as the “Blues”). Doc. 2931. The claims

were asserted in class actions filed in over 40 individual cases in numerous

jurisdictions throughout the country. The actions were consolidated for pretrial

proceedings by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in 2012 and transferred to the

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The Class Plaintiffs—individual

and group subscribers to Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance plans (and their

beneficiaries) and purchasers of the Blues’ “administrative services only” (“ASO”)

plans—alleged that Defendants had violated the Sherman Act by entering into an

unlawful agreement to restrain competition in the markets for health insurance and

for the administration of commercial health benefit products. Doc. 2931 at 1–2, 35.
2
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 67 of 82

The Settlement brings an end to over nine-years of, in the District Court's

words, “extraordinarily complex, protracted, and hard-fought [litigation],” id. at 2,

involving more than 100 law firms. After a gargantuan discovery effort (which

included, among other things, the briefing and resolution of over 150 discovery

motions, the production and review of more than 15 million pages of documents,

and the depositions of more than 140 fact and expert witnesses, id.), Class Plaintiffs

prevailed on their motion for partial summary judgment seeking application of the

per se standard of review to the Defendants’ alleged “aggregation of competitive

restraints.” In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., 308 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1267

(N.D. Ala. 2018). This Court denied Defendants’ application for an interlocutory

appeal of the District Court’s standard of review decision. In re Blue Cross Blue

Shield Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 7152887 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2018).

In October 2020, after two years of virtually continuous negotiations

conducted under the supervision of Special Master Edgar C. Gentle and with the

assistance of several mediators, the representatives of two Settlement Classes and an

ASO Sub-Class entered into a detailed and comprehensive agreement with

Defendants resolving the litigation. Doc. 2931 at 5. The Settlement establishes a

common fund of $2.67 billion, which will be distributed, pending resolution of the

Appeals, according to a plan of distribution approved by the District Court. As the

District Court acknowledged, “this financial settlement is one of the largest ever in

history, particularly considering that this is a private enforcement settlement,” Doc.

3
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 68 of 82

2931 at 3, 40, and indeed it “may represent the largest antitrust class action[s]

settlement on record,” id. at 72.

Yet, “[a]s significant as the monetary amount of $2.67 billion is,” the District

Court found that “the truly exceptional aspect of this Settlement is the structural

relief,” which will effect changes in how the Blues do business that “are designed to

enhance competition going forward,” and “will provide for materially greater

competition in the field of health care financing.” Id. at 40. Each element of the

injunctive relief is tailored to work in tandem to promote competition in the markets

for health insurance coverage and for administrative health care services. As the

District Court concluded, the structural relief negotiated by the parties will “creat[e]

opportunities for more competition in the market for the purchase and administration

of health insurance and provid[e] the potential for a more competitive environment

in which Settlement Class Members may achieve greater consumer choice, better

product availability, and increased innovation.” Id. at 11.

Key provisions of this structural relief include, inter alia, (1) elimination of

restrictions (known as the “National Best Efforts” (“NBE”) requirement) on the

ability of Blue Plans to generate revenue using non-Blue (i.e., “Green”) brands

outside of their territorial service areas; (2) revisions to rules (known as “Local Best

Efforts” requirements) mandating that 80 percent of a Blue Plan’s healthcare

revenue within its service area must come from Blue-branded business; (3) other

rule and structural changes that would open up competition among Blue Plans to bid
4
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 69 of 82

on large national accounts (including changes that would allow hundreds of qualified

national accounts to seek a bid not only from the Blue Plan in their headquarters area

but also to seek a second Blue bid from a Blue Plan of their choosing); (4) limitations

on the ability of the BCBSA to impose restrictions on acquisitions of Blue Plans;

and (5) the formation of a Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance with the

Settlement, including review of proposed BCBSA rules and regulations addressing

matters within the scope of the injunctive relief provisions of the Settlement. See

also id. at 12–15 (summarizing structural provisions of the settlement).

On November 30, 2020, the District Court, after a lengthy hearing, entered an

order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement, the Plan of Distribution, and

the Notice Plan. Doc. 2931 at 4. Over the following six months, the parties developed

and implemented a plan to ensure that notice of the Settlement was provided to the

over 100 million members of the Settlement Classes and ASO Sub-Class. In

response to the direct notice (which was supplemented by “an extensive media and

outreach campaign,” id. at 42), over 8.2 million timely claims have been filed. In

contrast, only 2,049 class members opted out of the damages class, and only 40

timely objections were received from a mere 123 objectors. Id. at 42. (The total

number of objectors, then, amounts to less than 0.00012% of the 100 million member

class, or a little more than one objection for every one million class members).

The Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the Settlement and for the

appointment of a Settlement Administrator on September 3, 2021. Doc. 2391 at 5.

5
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 70 of 82

In October 2021, the Court conducted a three-day fairness hearing and heard

arguments from the parties in support of the Settlement and from class members

objecting to the Settlement. Id. at 6. The Court subsequently ordered that

supplemental notice be provided to approximately 183,000 Self-Funded Entity

Account members of the ASO Sub-Class. The Settlement Administrator received 39

additional opt-outs, but no objections, in response to the Supplemental notice. Id. at

6–7. As noted, on August 9, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement

in an exhaustive 92-page opinion.

Four notices of appeal have now been filed on behalf of a total of six objectors:

Topographic, Inc., and Employee Services, Inc., filed their notice on September 7,

2022; Jennifer Cochran and Aaron Craker filed their notice of appeal on September

7, 2022; Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., along with its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,

and associated benefit plans, filed its notice of appeal on September 8, 2022; and

David G. Behenna filed his pro se notice of appeal on September 8, 2022.

ARGUMENT

I. The Appeals Should Be Consolidated.

“When the parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal, the appeals

may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals.” FED. R. APP. P. 3(b)(2).

Under the rules of this Circuit, appeals should be consolidated when it is in the

interest of judicial economy, “such as when multiple appeals raise the same or

similar issues.” 11TH CIR. R. 12-2. Consolidating the four pending Appeals, each of

6
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 71 of 82

which challenges the Final Approval Order and related orders, will clearly promote

judicial economy. The Appeals all stem from District Court orders concerning the

final approval of the Settlement and the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and

will raise overlapping or similar issues. And even if the particular arguments raised

by the Objectors-Appellants differ somewhat, consolidation is nonetheless

appropriate given the complete overlap in subject matter and the obvious

relationship between issues pertaining to Settlement approval and issues pertaining

to the fee and expense award. 2

In short, consolidating the Appeals for briefing and argument will promote

efficiency and eliminate the risk of inconsistent decisions by allowing Class

Plaintiffs to respond to all the arguments in a single brief and the Court to decide

each of the Appeals in a single disposition.

II. The Appeals Should Be Expedited.

This Court’s Rules and Internal Operating Procedures provide that an appeal

“may be expedited only by the court upon motion and for good cause shown.” See

FED. R. APP. P. 27; 11th Cir. I.O.P. 27.3. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) (court “shall

expedite the consideration of any action . . . if good cause therefor is shown.”). Class

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that there is good cause for expediting these Appeals.

2
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees have contacted the Clerk’s Office and
confirmed that, although the four Appeals have been designated as related, they
remain unconsolidated.
7
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 72 of 82

In addition to reducing the costs of administering the Settlement and minimizing the

value lost by the class members resulting from delay in payment of the Settlement’s

extraordinary monetary relief, expediting the Appeals will promote the interests not

only of class members but of the public at large in enhancing competition in the

national health insurance market.

1. Turning first to the latter point, there is good cause for expediting the

Appeals because prompt implementation of the historic structural relief achieved

under the Settlement, if the District Court’s approval order is affirmed, will advance

the primary purpose of the Sherman Act by promoting vigorous competition in the

national health insurance market. The Sherman Act “was designed to be a

comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered

competition.” N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958). Its “premise

[is] that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best

allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the

greatest material progress.” Id. 3 Cf. H.R. Rep. 98-985, 98th Cong., 2d. Sess. 1984,

1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5779, 5784, 1984 WL 37537, at *6 (Aug. 31, 1984) (Observing

that “the ‘good cause’ standard [of 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a)] could properly come into

3
See also E.T. SULLIVAN, THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE SHERMAN ACT:
THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED YEARS, vii (1991) (“The first principle of antitrust is that
our economic system should operate through market forces and that American
markets should be competitive.”).
8
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 73 of 82

play, for example, in … actions where the public interest in enforcement of the

statute is particularly strong.”).

Expediting disposition of the Appeals will accelerate the Settlement’s

elimination of restraints on competition in the health insurance market. “As

significant as the monetary amount of $2.67 billion is,” the District Court noted, “the

truly exceptional aspect of this Settlement is the structural relief.” Doc. 2931 at 40.

Because the Settlement “will provide for materially greater competition in the field

of health care financing,” id., all class members, including the Objectors-Appellants,

and the public at large have a strong interest in seeing this relief implemented as

soon as is practicable. The harm resulting from delayed implementation of the

Settlement is particularly pernicious for class members who continue to suffer

antitrust injury during the pendency of the Appeals, as they will be unable to seek

compensation from Defendants for such additional antitrust injuries even if the

judgment below is affirmed. 4

2. The Settlement’s $2.6 billion of monetary relief is designed to provide

compensation to class members who have suffered antitrust injury as a result of the

Blues’ anticompetitive conduct, and to delay any longer than is necessary the

4
Defendants have already implemented one component of the injunctive
relief—elimination of the NBE requirement—provided under the Settlement. Until
the Appeals have been resolved and the Settlement becomes final, however,
Defendants will remain free to reimpose the NBE requirement, and they will be
under no obligation to implement any of the other components of the injunctive relief
secured under the Settlement.
9
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 74 of 82

distribution of that compensation to tens of millions of class members because of

appeals filed by a very small handful of objectors only compounds that injury. 5

There are also significant incremental administrative costs entailed in

delaying distribution of the Settlement fund. Address and bank account information

must be kept up to date for each of the millions of class members who have filed

claims for compensation. Class counsel and the class administrator must also

respond to inquiries from class members regarding the status of the Settlement and

of the Appeals. These costs are significant; indeed, during the pendency of the

Appeals, they are expected to run at least $500,000-$600,000 per month. What is

more, with each passing month, no matter how great an effort is made, the Settlement

Administrator runs the risk that some class members may become difficult to locate.

The longer the delay, therefore, the higher the costs of administering the settlement

and the greater the risk that some number of class members may not be compensated

for their injuries. See In re Legend Radio Grp., Inc., 248 B.R. 281, 286 (W.D. Va.

1999), aff’d 211 F.3d 1265 (4th Cir. 2000) (allowing expedited appeal in bankruptcy

5
After the costs of class administration and attorneys’ fees and costs are
subtracted, the members of the class will receive $1.9 billion from the Settlement
Fund. That money has been paid into escrow and, pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, is being invested in short-term instruments backed by the full
faith and credit of the U.S. Government or in equivalent AAA-rated instruments.
Given the current spread between the rates of interest being paid on such instruments
and the rate of consumer price inflation, the purchasing power of the settlement is
likely decreasing by millions of dollars each month. Cf. H.R.Rep. 98-985, 1984 WL
37537, at *6 (“good cause” standard could exist “in a case in which failure to
expedite would … deprive the relief requested of much of its value.”).
10
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 75 of 82

case where court was concerned that administrative costs and fees would continue

to accumulate and to “erode Debtor's estate, concluding in a Dickensian result.”).

3. To be sure, the foregoing points are premised, to a large extent, on our

firm conviction that the pending Appeals lack merit, and will therefore needlessly

delay the receipt by over 100 million class members of the significant monetary and

structural benefits they have secured under this historic Settlement. Given the

miniscule number of objections to the Settlement, and the District Court’s exacting

review of the Settlement and thoroughgoing analysis of the objections at issue, Class

Plaintiffs are confident that this Court will ultimately affirm the judgment below in

all relevant respects. But there is ample cause for expedition in any event. For even

if this Court were to conclude that the District Court committed reversible error in

approving the Settlement, it would serve the interests of the parties and the public

for the Court to render such a decision sooner rather than later, so that the parties

and the District Court can reassess how best to resolve this long-pending litigation

in light of this Court’s guidance. The Class Plaintiffs and the Objectors-Appellants,

moreover, all share the same interests in redressing their past injuries and in

promoting competition going forward, and doing so as expeditiously as possible. Far

from prejudicing the Objector-Appellants, therefore, reasonable expedition of the

Appeals along the lines proposed in this motion is in their interest as well.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Accordingly, Plaintiffs-Appellees respectfully propose the following briefing

11
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 76 of 82

schedule:

• Objectors-Appellants’ Opening Briefs: to be filed 21 days after the

Court resolves the motion to expedite.
• Plaintiffs-Appellees’ and Defendants-Appellees’ Responsive
Briefs: to be filed 21 days after the last of Objectors-Appellants’
opening briefs are filed. 6
• Objectors-Appellants’ Reply Briefs: to be filed 10 days after the last
of appellees’ briefs are filed.
In addition, Plaintiffs-Appellees respectfully request that the Court schedule

oral argument at the earliest practicable opportunity after the completion of briefing.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs-Appellees respectfully request that the

Court consolidate the Appeals, enter the consolidated briefing schedule proposed

herein, and otherwise expedite disposition of the Appeals.

Dated: October 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Charles J. Cooper

Charles J. Cooper
Vincent J. Colatriano
Harold S. Reeves
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9660
ccooper@cooperkirk.com

6
Because appellees will need to respond to multiple briefs, it is possible that
they will need an enlargement of applicable word limits for their briefs. Appellees
are considering this issue, and will, in the event they determine an enlargement is
appropriate, submit a proposal for the Court’s consideration.
12
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051
David Boies – Co-Lead Counsel
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
dboies@bsfllp.com
William A. Isaacson
PAUL WEISS
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
Chris T. Hellums
PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS,
P.C.
2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place
Tower
Birmingham, AL 35203
chrish@pittmandutton.com
David Guin
Tammy Stokes
GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
The Financial Center
505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
Birmingham, AL 35203
davidg@gseattorneys.com
tammys@gseattorneys.com
Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 77 of 82
Michael Hausfeld – Co-Lead Counsel
Swathi Bojedla
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
sbojedla@hausfeld.com
Megan Jones
Arthur Bailey
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
mjones@hausfeldllp.com
abailey@hausfeldllp.com
Richard Feinstein
Karen Dyer
Hamish P.M. Hume
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015
rfeinstein@bsfllp.com
kdyer@bsfllp.com
hhume@bsfllp.com
Cyril V. Smith
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
csmith@zuckerman.com
13
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051
Gregory Davis
DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
7031 Halcyon Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
gldavis@knology.net
Mindee Reuben
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 314-7980
Fax: (973) 623-0858
mreubin@litedepalma.com
Patrick Cafferty
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
& SPRENGEL LLP
101 North Main Street, Suite 565 Washington, DC 20036-5807
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
Douglas Dellaccio
CORY WATSON CROWDER &
DEGARIS, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 32505
ddellaccio@cwcd.com
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr.
Benjamin Sweet
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD
LLC
200 First Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
ekilpela@dsclaw.com
bsweet@dsclaw.com
Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 78 of 82
Kathleen Chavez
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ &
O’NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
kcc@fmcolaw.com
Nate Cihlar
Joshua Callister
STRAUSS & BOIES
4041 University Drive, 5th Floor Fairfax,
VA 22030 Tel: (703) 764-8700 Fax:
(703) 764-8704
ncihlar@straus-boies.com
jcallister@straus-boies.com
Carl S. Kravitz
1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
ckravitz@zuckerman.com
Bryan Clobes
Ellen Meriwether
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
Larry McDevitt
David Wilkerson
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
14
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 79 of 82

Robert M. Foote Charles T. Caliendo

FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & GRANT & EISENHOFER
O’NEIL, LLC 485 Lexington Avenue
10 West State Street, Suite 200 New York, NY 10017
Geneva, IL 60134 ccaliendo@gelaw.com
rmf@fmcolaw.com

Daniel Gustafson Robert Eisler

Daniel C. Hedlund GRANT & EISENHOFER
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 123 Justison Street
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Wilmington, DE 19801
Minneapolis, MN 55402 reisler@gelaw.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

John Saxon Brent Hazzard

JOHN D. SAXON, P.C. HAZZARD LAW, LLC
2119 3rd Avenue North 447 Northpark Drive
Birmingham, AL 35203-3314 Ridgeland, MS 39157
jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com brenthazzard@yahoo.com

Andrew Lemmon Lawrence Jones

LEMMON LAW FIRM JONES WARD PLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335 312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130 Louisville, KY 40202
andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com larry@jonesward.com

Robert Methvin Virginia Buchanan

James M. Terrell LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS
MCCALLUM, METHVIN & MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR,
TERRELL, P.C. P.A.
The Highland Building 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
2201 Arlington Avenue South Pensacola, FL 32502
Birmingham, AL 35205 vbuchanan@levinlaw.com
rgm@mmlaw.net
jterrell@mmlaw.net

15
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051
H. Lewis Gillis
MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC
3121 Zelda Court
Montgomery, AL 36106
hlgillis@tmgslaw.com
David J. Hodge
MORRIS, KING & HODGE
200 Pratt Avenue NE
Huntsville, AL 35801
lstewart@alinjurylaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 80 of 82
Michael McGartland
MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT
LLP
1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76107
mike@attorneysmb.com
Warren T. Burns
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
wburns@burnscharest.com
16
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 81 of 82

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This document complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because,

excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), this

document contains 3,013 words.

This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.

32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6).

Dated: October 5, 2022.

/s/ Charles J. Cooper

Charles J. Cooper
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
ccooper@cooperkirk.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees

17
 USCA11 Case: 22-13051 Date Filed: 10/05/2022 Page: 82 of 82

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. Those counsel for Objectors-

Appellants and Defendant-Appellees who are registered ECF users will be served

by the ECF system.

I also certify that copies of the foregoing were served upon the following pro

se Objectors-Appellants via Federal Express and electronic mail on October 5, 2022:

David G. Behenna
155 Fleet Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
dgbehennara@yahoo.com

Jennifer Cochran
205 Marytena Drive
Louisville, KY 40214
jennicochran@gmail.com

Aaron Craker
205 Marytena Driver
Louisville, KY 40214
mcdrvitamin@gmail.com

Dated: October 5, 2022

/s/ Charles J. Cooper

Charles J. Cooper
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
ccooper@cooperkirk.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees

18