What is the legal test for a non-frivolous objection to a class action settlement?

As a threshold matter, even assuming Weese's arguments were "non-frivolous," Dennis , 697 F.3d at 864, we would be reluctant in the extreme, on the procedural ground raised, to upset a settlementespecially one of such overall benefit to the classthat otherwise evinced no signs of collusion, unfairness, or irregularity. See Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co. , 8 F.3d 1370, 137879 (9th Cir. 1993). That is all the more true here because the objector's complaint appears to be purely technicalit draws no link between the district court's supposed oversight and any substantive deficiency in the settlement. By so noting, we are not suggesting a harmless error standard for class action settlement review or otherwise disparaging the importance of procedural rigor in the review of such settlements. We merely emphasize that a reviewing court is concerned with the overall adequacy of the district court's fairness determination, not with parliamentary points of order about its process.