Case Name: In re: FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; Fire Insurance Exchange; Fire Underwriters Association; Farmers Group, Inc.; Mid-Century Insurance Company; Farmers Insurance Exchange, Petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-27
Citations: 406 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 10-704
Parties: In re: FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; Fire Insurance Exchange; Fire Underwriters Association; Farmers Group, Inc.; Mid-Century Insurance Company; Farmers Insurance Exchange, Petitioners.
Judges: Before MURPHY, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
In re: FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; Fire Insurance Exchange; Fire Underwriters Association; Farmers Group, Inc.; Mid-Century Insurance Company; Farmers Insurance Exchange, Petitioners.
No. 10-704.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 27, 2010.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Frederick Brown, Matthew S. Kahn, Julian WingKai Poon, Gibson Dunn, Los Angeles, CA, Richard C. Ford, Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, Barnes H. Ellis, Stoel Rives LLP, Stephen A. Redshaw, Timothy W. Snider, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioners.
Before MURPHY, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the defendants' petition for permission to appeal the district court's order granting the plaintiffs motion to modify the plaintiff class. See Fed. R.App. P. 5; Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f). The decision whether to grant the petition is purely discretionary. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(f); Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir.2009) (this discretion is " 'unfettered and akin to the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in acting on a petition for certiorari.' ") (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) advisory committee's note).
Upon a careful review of the materials filed with this court and the applicable law, we conclude that this matter is not appropriate for immediate review. None of the concerns noted by this court to justify an interlocutory appeal is present here. Id. at 1263-64.
Accordingly, the petition for permission to appeal is DENIED.