Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc.

holding that only class members had standing to object to award of attorney fees paid from class settlement fund | explaining that Aviation Act’s judicial review provision divests district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over “claims against FAA . . . officials involving final orders that are otherwise subject to judicial review under the Act.” | explaining that “[t]o have standing, one must be aggrieved by the order from which appeal is taken” and that “[c]ounsel have standing to appeal from orders issued directly against them, but not from orders applicable only to their clients” (citations omitted) | affirming award of fees to objectors’ counsel based on benefit conferred to class | “rarely are all the Johnson factors applicable; this is particularly so in a common fund ease.” | “rarely are all the Johnson factors applicable; this is particularly so in a common fund case.” | It is not the court's role to “second-guess” an ALJ's 10 reasonable interpretation of a claimant's testimony | objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in 10 evaluating the severity of pain | implying a preference for the percentage of the fund method | implying a preference for the percentage of the fund method. | “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the 10 sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical 11 evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant's pain and its 12 disabling effects.” | approving fee award of 29% of the common fund