Tennille v The Western Union Company

Two class members objected to a proposed class action settlement. The panel affirmed. It held the Tennille and the other name plaintiffs had interests sufficiently similar to the objectors so they qualified to be class representatives. It also held that the possibly of treble damages under Michigan law did not change the analysis as the district court held Colorado law applied and the damages in any event are discretionary. The panel affirmed the award holding the potential barriers to individual plaintiffs including arbitration clauses and authorization to charge administrative fees made the settlement which used class member money to fund the settlement reasonable under the circumstances. It held that the notice to class members was adequate as it identified the effect of not opting out and directed members to a settlement website which had several information packets explaining the settlement and what members gave up by not opting out and the use of forwarding information was sufficient to develop adequate mailing lists. It finally held that while using a party drafted order and only stating based on the arguments in the memos is poor practice, the district court said enough at the hearing to demonstrate it exercised independent judgment when it approved the settlement.

Emcasco Insurance Company v CE Design, Ltd.

CE sued a company for illegally sending it a faxed commercial solicitation. After a settlement, CE sued Emcasco seeking payment of the judgment through the insurance policy issued by Emcasco tot eh company. The district court granted summary judgment to Emcasco and the panel affirmed. It held the federal statutory claim against the company was specifically excluded form coverage, the state conversion claims were excluded as intentional acts and the state statutory claim was also excluded under exclusion for violation of statutes governing fax and other electronic communications.

Fleming v Gutierrez

Fleming sued Gutierrez and other county officials seeking an injunction to run elections differently. The district court granted a preliminary injunction. Fleming appealed, the panel denied expedited briefing and the election occurred. The panel dismissed the appeal as moot as the election had occurred and any issues raided by Fleming at the preliminary injunction stage were still before the district court and can be reviewed when final judgment is issued.