With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of obtaining the property.” 272 F.3d at 910-11. As discussed above, these types of cases— where the insured unlawfully obtained something from the underlying plaintiff— are inapposite: Beaumont did not unlawfully obtain anything from the nurses. Rather, it allegedly unlawfully withheld compensation from them. Thus, we find that Federal’s public policy claim fails. 3. Federal’s Discovery Request Is Moot Because the Policy requires and public policy does not preclude that Federal hon- or its commitment to indemnify Beaumont, there is no need for discovery on those issues. As the district court noted, the method of distribution of the settlement does not change the nature of the settlement itself. Regardless of the distribution of funds Inc., 2007 WL 3473683, *3 (W.D.Wash. Nov. 14, 2007) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 331 Fed.Appx. 473 (9th Cir.2009). 4 .

A: holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class
B: holding that we are bound by the theory or reasoning underlying a supreme court case not just by its holding
C: holding that the underlying suit did not seek to prevent unjust enrichment or to deprive defendant of the net benefit of its allegedly wrongful act but rather the underlying settlement was calculated by determining the individual harm suffered by each plaintiff
D: holding that an intervenor lacked standing to challenge a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the united states on the grounds that one of the plaintiffs claims was fraudulent because the intervenors were not parties to the settlement and suffered no personal harm from it notwithstanding the potential that its tax dollars went to pay the allegedly fraudulent claim
C.