Although a district court's discretion under Rule 23(d) is “not unlimited,” the district court plainly acted within its discretion in finding that the BCA Objectors forfeited and waived their objections by disobeying the reasonable requirements of the Preliminary Approval Order. Moreover, in an unpublished case with equivalent facts, Feder v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 248 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (5th Cir.2007), we dismissed an appeal from a district court's order on class certification and settlement approval based on the objector's failure to “prove his membership in the class” in accordance with the district court's reasonable documentation requirements. We see no meaningful difference between the present case and the facts of Feder.

(IFANY SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION, PLEASE OBTAIN A COPY OR EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS FROM YOUR BROKER BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE AND PROCESS YOUR CLAIM.)").Accord Feder v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 248 Fed. Appx. 579, 581, 2007 WL 2800135, at *2 (5th Cir. 2007) ("[W]here the proof of claims period has closed and the settlement has been finally approved by the district court, the burden of proving class membership cannot be satisfied by the appellant's unsupported assertions of class membership. [Appellant] did not submit a proof of claim form. Nor did he provide the documentary evidence required by the claim form to support his contention that he bought or sold EDS stocks during the class period. His objection did not include the required information as to the number or type of EDS securities that [appellant] alleges to have dealt in during the period."). Notice of Pendency and Proposed Global Settlement at 1 (explaining that "[t]he only way to get payment" is to "submit a claim form by December 10, 2009"; that the deadline to object is August 10, 2009; and that if putative class members "do nothing" they "get no payment" and "give up rights").

9. See Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 248 Fed.Appx. 579 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (per curiam). FN10.

An objector who does not prove her membership in the class lacks standing to object to a settlement reached in a securities class action. See Feder v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 248 F. App'x 579, 580 (5th Cir. 2007) ("[O]nly class members have an interest in the settlement funds, and therefore only class members have standing to object to a settlement."); see also In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 809 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming objectors who did not substantiate their membership in the class to have waived and forfeited their objections to settlement); Shaw v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., 91 F. Supp. 2d 942, 974-75 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (noting that an objector who failed to substantiate his membership in the class did not have "proper standing" to object to class action settlement). Magruder, as the party seeking to establish jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving standing.

SeeIn re Nationwide Fin. Servs. Litig., No. 2:08-cv-00249, 2009 WL 8747486, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2009) (" objectors failed to establish their membership in the Class or their standing to object." ); Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 248 Fed.Appx. 579, 581 (5th Cir. 2007) (objector lacked standing where he " produced no evidence substantiating his membership in the class." ).

Generally, only class members have standing to object to a class settlement. See, e.g., Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., No. 06-40735, 248 Fed. Appx. 579, 580 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 2007); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 130 B. R. 910, 923 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff'd, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992). The QuikTrip Objectors assert that they have standing to object because (1) they will suffer plain legal prejudice if the Court approves the settlements; and (2) Murphy Oil and Speedway are putative members of some settlement classes.

Practices Litig, 2013 WL 5275618, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept.17, 2013) (striking objection because objector had not "carried his burden of proving standing as a class member"); In re Korean Air Lines Co. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 7985367, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2013) (finding objectors lack standing for failure to show class membership); Kent v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106825 *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) ("Because they are not members of the class, the Ziegenfelders lack standing to object."); San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School Dist, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 1999) ("nonclass members have no standing to object to the settlement of a class action"); Tarlecki v. Bebe Stores, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102531 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2009) ("Since she is not a class member, she has no standing to object to the settlement."); Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8476, 2007 WL 221862, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (same); see also Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 248 Fed. Appx. 579 *2 (5th Cir. 2007) (objectors have burden of proving standing; "unsupported assertions of class membership" do not suffice). Her attorney has provided this type of information in support of other objections.

Plaintiffs falling outside the settlement class are entirely unaffected by the Settlement, and thus lack standing to challenge it. See Rec. Doc. 6418 at 16–17; Apr. 25 Preliminary Approval Hr'g Tr. at 48:20–49:1; Rec. Doc. 7038 at 1; Feder v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 248 Fed.Appx. 579, 580 (5th Cir.2007);Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir.1989); 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11:55 (4th ed.).

Because neither Mr. Delluomo nor the Orloffs submitted a claim in this case, they lacked standing to object to the settlement. See Knisley v. Network Assoc., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2002) ("lack of standing should be apparent" for an objector who failed to submit proof of claim); Feder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 248 F. Appx. 579, 580 (5th Cir. 2007) (only claimants "have an interest in the settlement funds" because "[a]nyone else lacks the requisite proof of injury necessary to establish the `irreducible minimum' of standing"). At the hearing, Lead Counsel raised the issue of the Ninth Circuit's award of attorneys' fees to NYSTRS's appellate counsel in the amount of $171,490.

Laney, therefore, lacks standing to bring this suit and the case must be dismissed. See Feeder v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 248 Fed. App'x 579, at *2 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Standing being jurisdictional, we dismiss."). CONCLUSION