Colella's Super Market, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc.
849 F.3d 761
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2003 SuperValu and C&S exchanged regional wholesale grocery assets, including supply and arbitration agreements, via an Asset Exchange Agreement (AEA); retailers sued alleging the AEA unlawfully allocated markets in violation of the Sherman Act.
- Plaintiffs proposed two nationwide classes (Midwest and New England), each with an Arbitration Subclass made up of retailers bound by arbitration agreements with their post-swap wholesaler; Village Market represented the New England Arbitration Subclass.
- The district court denied certification of the broad New England and Midwest classes and granted summary judgment to defendants; some rulings were appealed and the Eighth Circuit partly reversed as to a narrower Midwest class but the New England denial was not appealed by DeLuca.
- Village Market and Colella sought to relitigate certification of a narrower New England class (Greater Boston); Colella moved to intervene to join Village Market. The magistrate and district court denied intervention and refused to allow relitigation of New England class certification.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit dismissed Village Market’s interlocutory appeal for lack of Rule 23(f) jurisdiction (the original denial of the New England class remained final and unappealed) and affirmed the denial of Colella’s motion to intervene as untimely and within the district court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may hear an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f) of the district court’s later order refusing to consider certification of a narrower New England class | Village Market: the later order effectively denied certification of a new, narrower class and should be reviewable under Rule 23(f) | Defendants: the later order did not grant or deny class certification and left the prior denial intact; Rule 23(f) does not apply | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Rule 23(f) applies only to an order granting or denying certification and the original denial was final and unappealed |
| Whether Colella's motion to intervene was timely | Colella: it could not intervene earlier because it lacked standing while the Arbitration Subclasses were dismissed and reasonably relied on existing pleadings; intervention now is necessary to seek a narrower class | Defendants: litigation was advanced, Colella (through counsel) knew earlier, and post-denial delay prejudiced parties | Affirmed district court: denial of intervention was not an abuse of discretion — motion untimely given litigation progression, knowledge, unexplained delay, and prejudice concerns |
| Whether the district court’s refusal to let New England plaintiffs relitigate certification was reviewable because Village Market had been dismissed during prior proceedings | Village Market: as a dismissed subclass representative it had no opportunity to appeal earlier and therefore should not be bound by DeLuca’s failure to appeal | Defendants: absence of appeal by DeLuca made the original denial final; later requests do not reopen Rule 23(f) time limits | Court declined to reach the substantive fairness arguments and held it lacked authority to hear the interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in weighing intervention factors (progression, knowledge, delay, prejudice) | Colella: the district court erred by not crediting an affidavit of late knowledge and by misweighing prejudice | Defendants: district court correctly applied the timeliness factors and found delay unjustified | Court upheld district court’s discretionary ruling, noting appellants failed to adequately explain knowledge/delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 283 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing orders that materially alter class status from orders that leave prior certification rulings unchanged)
- Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (an order that leaves class status unchanged is not appealable under Rule 23(f))
- In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (refusing Rule 23(f) review where post-certification orders did not alter class status)
- Fleischman v. Albany Med. Ctr., 639 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing attempted Rule 23(f) appeal by parties seeking to certify a narrower class after a broad class denial)
- Tweedle v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 527 F.3d 664 (8th Cir. 2008) (intervention may be untimely even late in litigation, but timeliness is context dependent)