Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-00705/USCOURTS-ca10-24-00705-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Bateman
Respondent
Fluent Health, LLC
Petitioner
David Gallegos
Respondent
Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc.
Petitioner
Dania Pruess
Respondent
Linda Vargas Martinez
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH PLAN, INC.; 

FLUENT HEALTH, LLC, 

 Petitioners,

v.

DANIA PRUESS, individually and on 

behalf of all those similarly situated; 

MARY BATEMAN, individually and on 

behalf of all those similarly situated; 

LINDA VARGAS MARTINEZ, 

individually and on behalf of all those 

similarly situated; DAVID GALLEGOS, 

individually and on behalf of all those 

similarly situated, 

 Respondents.

No. 24-705

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00629-DHU-JFR)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Petitioners Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc. and 

Fluent Health, LLC’s Petition for Permission to Appeal Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(f). See Fed. R. App. P. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). Respondents filed a 

response in opposition. Petitioners also filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a 

reply, which includes a proposed reply, and an unopposed motion to seal Volume 9 of 

their appendix. As an initial matter, the motion for leave to file a reply is GRANTED. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 2, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-705 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1
2

The reply shall be filed as of the date it was received. The motion to seal is also granted. 

Appendix Volume 9 shall remain under seal.

“A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order of a district court granting 

or denying class-action certification. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) (emphasis added). This 

discretion is “‘unfettered’ and ‘akin to the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in 

acting on a petition for certiorari.’” Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) advisory committee’s note). “[T]he grant of a 

petition for interlocutory review constitutes the exception rather than the rule.” Id.

Vallario described three situations in which interlocutory review of a class 

certification order may be appropriate: (1) “death knell” situations, “in which a 

questionable class certification order is likely to force either a plaintiff or a defendant to 

resolve the case based on considerations independent of the merits,” (2) situations in 

which a class certification order involves “an unresolved issue of law relating to class 

actions that is likely to evade end-of-case review, and [that is] significant to the case at 

hand, as well as to class actions generally,” and (3) situations in which the class 

certification order is “manifestly erroneous.” Id. at 1263. The Petition asks us to permit 

an interlocutory appeal to correct manifest error.

After careful consideration of the parties’ filings, the district court’s order, and the 

applicable law, we are not persuaded that a permissive interlocutory appeal is warranted 

to correct manifest error. 

Appellate Case: 24-705 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 2
3

Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-705 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 3