Tennille v. Western Union Company, The

Filing 429

ORDER denying 419 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge John L. Kane on 12/21/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-938,-JLK (consolidated with 10-cv-765-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 DENYING SETTLEMENT OBJECTOR NELSON’S MOTION
TO INTERVENE (Doc. 419)
________________________________________________________________________
KANE, J.
Settlement Objector Sikora Nelson moves to intervene as a matter of right in this
class action for equitable relief that was brought by Western Union customers nearly
seven years ago and amicably settled in 2014. Because her motion is untimely, untoward,
and prejudicial to class members who have been waiting years to effectuate the class
action settlement while appeals, including Ms. Nelson’s, have been pending, it is
DENIED.
Ms. Nelson made her appearance in this case more than 2 ½ years ago, when she
came in at the eleventh hour to object to the class action settlement that had been
carefully negotiated by class counsel and the defendants after extensive litigation. Ms.

Nelson had her day in court and her objections were considered carefully and overruled.
She pursued an appeal, which was rejected, which she continues to pursue before the
Supreme Court. Because her appeal rests in part on the (erroneous) assertion – never
raised in the trial court – that the named class representatives have already reclaimed their
unclaimed money transfers so that they no longer adequately represent the class, the
parties recently filed an unopposed motion to clarify the record (Doc. 418), which I
granted. (Doc. 425.) Ms. Nelson moves to intervene in order to dispute the undisputed
fact that no monies have yet been repatriated.
Rule 24(a) requires that motions to intervene be “timely,” which courts evaluate
under three factors: “(1) the length of time since the movant knew of its interests in the
case; (2) prejudice to the existing parties; and (3) prejudice to the movant.” Oklahoma ex
rel. Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 619 F.3d 1223, 1232 (10th Cir. 2010). Ms. Nelson’s
purported “interest” in this case is that settlement will dispose of “roughly $135 million in
uncompleted transfer funds held by Western Union” which will thwart her ability to
pursue independent claims against Western Union for those funds. Mot. (Doc. 419) at ¶ 9.
Those interests were known to Ms. Nelson and her counsel more than 2 ½ years ago,
when she received the Notice of Class Action Settlement that precipitated her objection,
which was heard, rejected, and has already been rejected on appeal.
The parties to this action would be prejudiced if Ms. Nelson were permitted to
intervene in a renewed and futile effort to thwart the settlement. Ms. Nelson will not be
permitted, again, to hold hostage a settlement that was negotiated in good faith for the
2

benefit of thousands of past and future Western Union customers.
Ms. Nelson, who has always been represented by counsel, has had a full and fair
opportunity to opt out of the class action settlement and pursue her own claims. Her
objections to the settlement were fully heard and soundly rejected. Her contentions
regarding the adequacy of the named representatives, besides being erroneous, are
untimely and untoward. The class is ably represented by the named Plaintiffs and class
counsel, and no useful purpose would be served by adding or changing them now. To put
it succinctly, this train has left the station.
The Motion to Intervene by Objector Sikora Nelson (Doc. 419) is DENIED.
Dated this 21st day of December, 2015.

s/John L. Kane
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3