Plaintiffs also are uncertain, at this stage, whether any additional form of notice, however limited, might be required. They cannot address that issue until the scope and effect of the amended settlement agreement on class members is determined.
Mem. in Support at 3. As Homer Simpson might say, "Doh!"
I see this as a strategic attempt to keep other parties from horning in on the action. Many of the objections raised have concerned inadequate representation by the named plaintiffs a far higher proportion than normal, and far more searching and detailed in scope. As David Niven might have said, were this the Academy Awards, "I wouldn't expose my shortcomings in public." Nonetheless, these children don't want to share with the others... so they're going to try and short-circuit the process.
If I were a particularly mean and nasty shark, already admitted in the Southern District of New York, with a particularly bloodthirsty client who provided better/more representation than the current named plaintiffs, I might file a motion that asked the judge to either hold the hearing as scheduled, limited to the adequacy of representation issue, or to reject the settlement and require appointment of new class representatives. However, I'm missing one of those qualifications... and it's not the "mean and nasty shark" one.
Any relationship of this post to the following cartoon is purely intended.