In Fidel v. Farley, the Sixth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that an unnamed, nonintervening member of a Rule 23(b)(3) class may appeal the approval of a class settlement. The appellant in Fidel sought to set aside the district court’s approval of the settlement and award of attorney’s fees because certain class members received notice of the settlement after the deadline for objecting to the settlement. Class counsel argued that the appellate court should decline to hear the appeal because the unnamed class member was not a “party” for purposes of appealing the settlement. Generally, a non-party to a lawsuit is not permitted to appeal a district court’s order unless it has first sought leave to intervene. However, in Devlin v. Scardelletti, the Supreme Court determined that in the context of a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1) class, nonnamed class members are parties to the proceedings in the sense of being bound by the settlement. This feature of class action litigation, the Court explained, requires that class members be allowed to appeal the approval of a settlement when they have objected at the fairness hearing. Although Fidel, unlike Devlin, involved a Rule 23(b)(3) class from which the appellant could have technically opted out, the Sixth Circuit was nonetheless persuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s rationale for applying Devlin to Rule 23(b)(3) classes