Tennille v. Western Union Company, The

Filing 415

ORDER. The Motion for Interpretation 412 is GRANTED. To the extent the Motion calls for any additional rulings or substantive modifications of the Judgment, it is DENIED. Entered by Judge John L. Kane on 09/21/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00938-JLK-KMT (consolidated with No. 10-cv-00765-JLK)

JAMES P. TENNILLE, ROBERT SMET, ADELAIDA DELEON and YAMILET
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY and WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER re Doc. 412 MOTION FOR INTERPRETATION OF
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND JUDGMENT
Kane, J.
This case is before me on the Defendants' Motion for Interpretation of the
Settlement Agreement and Judgment (Doc. 412). While I sympathize with Defendants'
anxiety aroused by various States’ objections and speculations of actions adverse to
Defendants, there is no ambiguity presented in the Settlement Agreement or the
Judgment, which is final. The issues raised by the States, as related by Defendants, do
not preclude the funding of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, Defendants must comply
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as it is written. The States were given an
opportunity to intervene in this case when it was at issue and they chose not to do so. The

States are not parties to this action and never have been. It is not within the province of
this court's jurisdiction to speculate about what some non-party might want to do at some
undetermined date about a final judgment in a case in which such a non-party elected not
to appear. Courts do not and should not render advisory judgments or decisions.
As related in Defendants' Motion, and the attendant briefs which I have studied,
the States' claims and assertions appear meritless. There are no cognizable claims of any
kind by the States to the Settlement Funds and, as the Settlement Agreement conditionally
provides for application of the cy pres doctrine to any residual funds remaining after
payment of the costs and claims of the Class Members, any interest the States may claim
is merely an expectancy and not a claim of right. If and when any concrete claim of right
accrues and is made, the matter will be considered on its merits. This Court retains
jurisdiction and will act as necessary to enforce the Final Judgment.
The Motion for Interpretation (Doc. 412) is GRANTED as set forth in my
comments above. To the extent the Motion calls for any additional rulings or substantive
modifications of the Judgment, it is DENIED.

Dated September 21, 2015.
s/John L. Kane
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2