Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc, 1:16-cv-01849

Plaintiffs (Airquip, Inc., Kelly DaSilva, Nicole Gray) filed a putative class action alleging HomeAdvisor sold fraudulent business-service leads and asserting RICO, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, fraud, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment claims.
Tim Davidson, proceeding pro se, moved to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, alleging he purchased 230 leads from HomeAdvisor and that the suit concerns the same transactions.
Davidson’s filing was timely and related to the subject matter of the class action, but he did not allege that his interests would be impaired or that existing parties failed to represent him.
Plaintiffs’ counsel had informed Davidson that they did not represent him and advised him to obtain separate counsel; Davidson indicated he might file a separate case in Arkansas.
The court construed Davidson’s filing liberally but concluded he failed to satisfy Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements because he did not show practical impairment or inadequate representation by the named plaintiffs.
The court denied the motion to intervene, noting Davidson could opt out of any certified class if he believed his interests were not adequately represented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davidson may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2)	Davidson claimed an interest in the same transactions (purchase of leads) and timely moved to intervene	Implicitly, existing parties adequately represent interests; no showing of impairment or inadequate representation by Davidson	Denied — Davidson did not show his interest would be impaired or that representation was inadequate
Whether intervention should be permitted under Rule 24(b) (permissive intervention)	Davidson sought to join claims overlapping with the class action	Court considered overlap but noted lack of showing why separate intervention was necessary	Not granted — court denied intervention (no permissive intervention relief granted)
Whether pro se status warrants liberal construction of filings	Davidson argued pro se filings should be construed liberally	Plaintiffs pointed out counsel had informed Davidson they did not represent him and advised separate counsel	Court applied liberal construction but required Rule 24 showings; liberal construction did not alter outcome
Whether Davidson can protect his interests without intervening now	Davidson did not explain inability to proceed independently	Plaintiffs noted Davidson could pursue separate suit or opt out of class if certified	Court held Davidson could protect interests outside intervention (e.g., opt out or separate suit)

United States v. Albert Inv. Co., Inc., 585 F.3d 1386 (10th Cir.) (summarizes four elements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2))
City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 79 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir.) (adequacy of representation measured by identity of objectives between applicant and existing party)
Bottoms v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 869 (10th Cir.) (discusses adequacy of representation standard in intervention context)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings are to be construed liberally)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.) (court’s guidance on liberal construction of pro se complaints)