would not have allowed the parties to refile the derivative lawsuit in federal court. Because this is a hypothetical argument, we do not consider it. 3 . Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2707, 129 L.Ed.2d 834 (1994); Zarowitz v. BankAmerica Corp., 866 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam), Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc., 550 F.2d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.1977); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir.1982) (dictum). In two cases we have remanded where the district court provided "no inquiry” into the shareholders' objections. Ficalora v. Lockheed Cal. Co., 751 F.2d 995, 997 (9th Cir.1985); see also Saunders v. Naval Air Rework Facility, 608 F.2d 1308, 1311 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). 4 . See Thomas M. Jones, An Empirical
holding that an injunction was inappropriate because this was not an mdl case discovery was not complete no class settlement was imminent in fact as far as the record shows no serious settlement progress had been made holding that only 29 objections in 281 member class strongly favors settlement holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury