of out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $290,086. Id. at 611-12. Kaufmann filed this timely appeal. He objects to the fee award, contending the District Court abused its discretion by awarding class counsel an unreasonable common fund percentage fee and failed to follow the proper standards for assessing attorneys’ fees. He also contends the District Court violated the class’s rights to Fifth Amendment Due Process and to adequate representation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 by failing to appoint a guardian or fee award expert to counter class counsel’s expert declaration supporting their fee contention. Although an unnamed class member, Kaufmann has standing to appeal, without first intervening. See Devlin v. Scardelletti 536 U.S. 1, 14, 122 S.Ct. 2005, 153 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002) (<HOLDING>); See also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Bolger, 2
holding that unnamed class members who had contested fairness of proposed settlement and attempted to opt out of class action were entitled to appeal settlement under virtualrepresentation doctrine holding that an unnamed plaintiff that did not intervene nonetheless had standing to appeal a class action settlement holding that unnamed class members who object in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing may appeal without first intervening holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members recognizing that requiring an objector to intervene in a class action in order to appeal the approval of a settlement would only add an additional layer of complexity before the appeal of the settlement approval may finally be heard