descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In Re: Synergen, Inc., Securities Litigation v. Clyde Cutner Toby Cutner, on Behalf of Themselves and All Those Similarly Situated Marcello Aquino Charles Dahl, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Berry Freeman, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Jane Freeman David Goldstein Sylvia Goldstein, on Behalf of Themselves and All Those Similarly Situated Michael Kaptzan Dennis A. Lowenthal, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Keith Nemerov, on Behalf of Himself and All Those Similarly Situated Thomas Rodak Dianne Rodak, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated Leo Rubin, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Marlene Sackheim, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated Robert Sackheim, Dr. Louis D. Scarcia, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Janice M. Scarcia Michael Antuono Frank Fasano, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Oscar Sheffield Daniel Knisely Michael A

Citations: 85 F.3d 641; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 32139; 1996 WL 117474Docket: 95-1381

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; March 14, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation, members of a class action, referred to as the 'Temples', appealed the district court's denial of their motion to amend a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). The primary issue revolved around the adequacy of notice regarding a class action settlement related to shares of Synergen purchased between November 7, 1991, and February 19, 1993. The district court had ordered notices to be sent to shareholders, but due to the shares being held in 'street name', the Temples received notice 31 days after the exclusion deadline. They argued that inadequate notice precluded their ability to opt out of the settlement. After their opt-out request was denied, they sought relief from the judgment, which was also denied. The appellate court reviewed the denial under an abuse of discretion standard, ultimately affirming the district court's decision. The court found that the district court did not commit a clear error in judgment, and thus, the Temples' appeal was unsuccessful. The ruling emphasized the procedural requirements for citing unpublished opinions and reinforced the standards for relief under Rule 60(b).

Legal Issues Addressed

Class Action Settlement Notice Requirements

Application: The district court required Synergen's counsel to mail settlement notices to individuals listed on transfer records, ensuring notice was published in major publications to inform class members of exclusion deadlines.

Reasoning: The district court's December 15, 1995, Settlement Order mandated Synergen's counsel to mail settlement notices and proof of claim to individuals listed on the transfer records as having purchased Synergen shares.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)

Application: The Temples sought relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), claiming improper notice of the exclusion deadline, but the district court denied their motion.

Reasoning: The appellants, known as the 'Temples', are class members appealing the district court's denial of their motion to amend a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Permissibility of Citing Unpublished Opinions

Application: Unpublished opinions may be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided that copies are furnished appropriately.

Reasoning: Citation of unpublished opinions is now permissible if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy accompanies the citing document or is furnished during oral argument.

Standard of Review for Denial of Relief from Judgment

Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's denial of the motion under an abuse of discretion standard, affirming the decision as no clear error in judgment was found.

Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, which allows for overturning a decision only if the appellate court is firmly convinced that the lower court made a clear error in judgment.