Justice may never be had when it comes to the pet food recalls of 2007. Payments in a $24-million settlement of claims remain hung up in court. Yet, it could be that they are hung up for a couple of good reasons.

Their are a total of four plaintiffs appealing the settlement: Margaret Picus, Daniel Kaffer, Jim W. Johnson and Dustin Turner.

Picus and Kaffer's objection stems from separate legal suits involving the use of the phrase "Made in the USA" by pet food  manufacturers who obtain ingredients from China. According to court documents, Picus and Kaffer are concerned that the pet food settlement will release the manufacturers from the mislabeling claims. Johnson and Turner's objections arise from the "settlement being unfair, unreasonable or inadequate," according to their lawyer, Jeffrey
Weinstein of Tyler, Texas.

The $24 million settlement was approved last November by U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman in New Jersey. The four plaintiffs in the case are effectively irritating the court.

"This is holding it up for everybody," said Lisa Rodriguez, a lawyer serving as liaison counsel for the 100-plus class action suits covered by the settlement.

"We're just in a holding pattern right now. I don't think there's been a briefing scheduled yet." Rodriguez said, noting that the appeals have barely advanced. "We're still some time away from having the Third Circuit (Court of Appeals) even address it unless they try to deal with it summarily."

Under the agreement, pet owners whose claims are judged eligible may be reimbursed for expenses such as the cost of veterinary treatment, the cost of carpeting ruined by a sick animal, the cost of a dead pet or its fair market value and the cost of a new pet.

View the details of the agreement at PetFoodSettlement.