29 Cal. App. 5th 725
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Three putative class actions were filed against Heartland for wage-and-hour violations: Edwards and Wilson (filed Jan 5, 2016) and Torres (filed Mar 4, 2016). Torres later sought to intervene in Edwards.
- Edwards originally named Relationship Managers as class representatives; later amended complaints expanded the class to include a range of sales-based employees and added claims (meal/rest breaks, wage deductions, PAGA, unreimbursed expenses).
- Plaintiffs in the three cases mediated together; Edwards reached a settlement memorandum of understanding and thereafter propounded confirmatory discovery on Heartland.
- Torres plaintiffs moved to intervene in Edwards (both mandatory and permissive) after Edwards settled but before final court approval; the trial court denied intervention, concluding Torres could object or opt out and that the court would protect class members in approving any settlement.
- Torres appealed; while the appeal was pending, Edwards filed further amended complaints and increased the proposed settlement amount; this court stayed proceedings to hear the intervention appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres plaintiffs were entitled to mandatory intervention under CCP §387(b) | Torres: settlement would impair their ability to protect claims; they need intervention to preserve appeal and challenge adequacy | Edwards/Heartland: Torres can opt out or object; the court’s fiduciary duty and approval process protect absent class members | Denied — not entitled to mandatory intervention because opt-out/objection and court oversight prevent practical impairment |
| Whether intervention was required to preserve appeal rights under Hernandez | Torres: Hernandez requires becoming a party of record via intervention to appeal settlement | Edwards/Heartland: Hernandez also recognizes §663 vacatur motion as an alternative to intervention | Denied — Hernandez permits alternative §663 motion; failure to press §663 in opening brief waived part of argument |
| Whether permissive intervention under CCP §387(a) should be granted to allow discovery and representation of Division/Sales Manager interests | Torres: needs to intervene to conduct discovery and ensure representatives include Division/Sales Managers | Edwards/Heartland: Torres may object or opt out and, as objectors, may seek limited discovery; Edwards already amended to add relevant representatives | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; reasons for intervention did not outweigh opposition |
| Whether post-mediation added claims or later amendments justify intervention | Torres: new claims and factual detail added after mediation require Torres’ participation | Edwards/Heartland: confirmatory discovery was provided; settlement/fairness review covers post-mediation additions | Denied — intervening unnecessary; objections and discovery as objectors suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- Siena Court Homeowners Assn. v. Green Valley Corp., 164 Cal.App.4th 1416 (examines §387 mandatory intervention factors)
- Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal.5th 260 (unnamed class member must be party of record to appeal; identifies intervention or §663 vacatur as routes)
- Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Dev., Inc., 130 Cal.App.4th 540 (discusses alignment of §387 with federal Rule 24 principles)
- Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.) (federal rule 24(a) precedent; denial of intervention reviewed de novo federally)
- Villacres v. ABM Indus. Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (class member may opt out to preserve right to bring independent action)
- Luckey v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.4th 81 (trial court’s fiduciary duty in approving class settlements)
- Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 116 (objectors may obtain discovery when settlement disclosures are inadequate)