Tennille v. Western Union Company

Case # 09-cv-00938
Case Name Tennille v. Western Union Company
Jurisdiction US District Court for CO
Summary

The majority of Western Union's business involves wire transfers of money, acting as an intermediary between individual parties. Sometimes, these transfers are not completed (if a recipient fails to pick up the funds or if the funds are not successfully transferred). However, Western Union makes no effort to return these untransferred funds to the sender, instead holding on to the funds and using them for their cash flow needs. This, despite the fact that Western Union requires contact information for money senders and could make a reasonable attempt to return the funds. 

Final Approval Date 06/26/2013
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objectors Nelson and Dorsey appealed the Final Approval.
  3. Class counsel motioned for an $1,007,294 Appeal Bond, which was granted by the District Court.
  4. The Tenth Circuit upheld the Appeal Bond, but reduced it to $5,000 for each Objector.
  5. Objector Bacharach appealed the Report and Recommendation.
  6. Appeal of Objector Bacharach was voluntarily dismissed on 02/25/2015.
  7. Appeals of Nelson and Dorsey Objectors were ruled against by the Court and the Settlement was upheld on 05/01/2015.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 05/01/2015
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Order Granting Attorneys Fees.pdf
Report and Recommendation.pdf
Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Brief in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting Appeal Bond.pdf
Motion for Contempt.pdf
Order Granting Motion for Contempt.pdf
Order Reducing But Affirming Appeal Bond.pdf
Appellate Court Decision.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.

Objectors N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Signers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Attorneys N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Paul S. Rothstein
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.

NOTE: Following his admission into the Colorado Bar, Objector Bacharach filed a second objection to the Report and Recommendation, this time in conjunction with Attorney Paul S. Rothstein.

Attachments Objection of N. Albert Bacharach Jr.pdf
Objection of N. Albert Bacharach Jr (Report and Recommendation).pdf
Rothstein Appearance for Objector Bacharach.pdf
Motion to Strike Objection of N. Albert Bacharach Jr (Report and Recommendation).pdf
Brief in Support of Motion to Strike Objection of N. Albert Bacharach Jr (Report and Recommendation).pdf
Response to Motion to Strike Objection of N. Albert Bacharach Jr (Report and Recommendation).pdf
Appeal of Objector Bacharach.pdf
Bacharach Appeal Docket.pdf
Dismissal of Bacharach Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Paul Dorsey

Objectors Paul Dorsey
Signers Paul Dorsey
Attorneys
Summary
  1. It is unclear how effective the Notice Program has been.
  2. It is unclear whether class members who object would be required to appear for a deposition in their own county or their own state.
  3. Value of the settlement is unclear.
  4. Attorneys' fees are acceptable but heretofore unearned.
Attachments Paul Dorsey Letter.pdf
Response to Paul Dorsey Letter.pdf
Objection of Paul Dorsey.pdf
Objection of Paul Dorsey (Report and Recommendation).pdf
Appeal of Objector Dorsey.pdf
Dorsey Response to Appeal Bond.pdf
Dismissal of Nelson and Dorsey Appeals.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sikora Nelson

Objectors Sikora Nelson
Signers Sikora Nelson
Theodore J. Westbrook
Attorneys John E. Anding
Theodore J. Westbrook
Summary
  1. Settlement is unfair to Michigan class members, since the recovery is not the maximum available under state law.
Attachments Objection of Sikora Nelson.pdf
Brief in Support of Objection of Sikora Nelson.pdf
Appeal of Objector Nelson.pdf
Nelson Response to Appeal Bond.pdf
Appeal of Objector Nelson (Appeal Bond).pdf
Dismissal of Nelson and Dorsey Appeals.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated