Benjamin Ex Rel. Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938

Plaintiffs are five individuals with mental retardation residing in Pennsylvania DPW intermediate care facilities alleging ADA/RA violations for failure to offer community-based services.
District Court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for residents not opposed to community placement; eight Appellants sought to intervene.
District Court denied intervention at remedy stage; settlement negotiations led to a Settlement Agreement with a Planning List, Integration Plan, and funding provisions.
Settlement received preliminary approval; a fairness hearing occurred with objections from some residents/guardians; final approval was granted.
Appellants appealed, challenging remedy-stage intervention denial and settlement approval; Third Circuit vacated and remanded for intervention as of right in the remedy stage to challenge settlement and decertify the class.
Court had previously held that the class excludes those who oppose community placement, affecting related interests of intervenors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of intervention as of right in the remedy stage was an abuse of discretion	Intervenors have a substantial, practical interest affected by the remedy and are inadequately represented	Intervenors lacked a direct interest and were adequately represented	Yes, abuse; grant intervention in remedy stage.
Whether Appellants may intervene to challenge the Settlement and seek decertification	Intervenors should be allowed to participate to contest the Settlement and class certification	Remedy-stage intervention does not automatically permit challenge to settlement/class; need separate proceedings	Remand with instructions to grant remedy-stage intervention and permit challenge to Settlement and decertification.

Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (establishes community-based treatment obligation under ADA/RA when feasible and desired by patient)
Mountain Top Condominium Ass'n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 1995) (intervention requires a direct interest; funds/benefits may support intervention when appropriate)
Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (shows need for direct, legally cognizable interest to intervene)
Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998) (alignment of interests affects adequacy of representation; burden on movant is light)
In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) (outlines elements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2))