Gemcap Lending I, LLC v. Donna Taylor
677 F. App'x 351
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Donna Taylor moved to intervene in a 2013 federal lawsuit after the original parties reached a settlement in September 2014 and after the district court entered a decree; she filed to intervene in January 2015.
- The district court denied Taylor’s motion to intervene as untimely in an eight-page order explaining its reasoning.
- Taylor argued the timeliness determination should be reviewed de novo; the panel instead applied abuse-of-discretion review because the district court issued a reasoned opinion.
- The district court found Taylor waited 14 months from the start of suit to settlement (plus an additional 4 months post-settlement) before moving to intervene.
- The court concluded Taylor knew or should have known her interests might be affected and that allowing intervention would prejudice the settling parties and disrupt the settlement.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention and held it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of the underlying settlement agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to intervene | Delay was excusable; court or parties could raise illegality later | Delay was prejudicial; she waited until after settlement and decree | Motion untimely; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Standard of review | De novo review (relying on League of United Latin Am. Citizens) | Abuse of discretion because district court issued a reasoned opinion | Abuse-of-discretion review applies |
| Prejudice to settling parties | Intervention would not unduly prejudice because illegality can be raised anytime | Allowing intervention would upset negotiated settlement and harm parties | District court reasonably found prejudice to other parties |
| Jurisdiction to review settlement merits | (Taylor sought review of settlement legality) | Appellant lacks standing because intervention was denied | Appellate jurisdiction limited to denial of intervention; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.) (timeliness factors and prejudice considerations for intervention)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir.) (articulates three-factor timeliness test and discusses review standard)
- Orange Cty. v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535 (9th Cir.) (delay until settlement weighs heavily against intervention)
- Aleut Corp. v. Tyonek Native Corp., 725 F.2d 527 (9th Cir.) (intervention on eve of settlement not timely)
- United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576 (9th Cir.) (intervenor must act when they know interests may be affected)
- Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657 (9th Cir.) (denial of intervention eliminates standing to challenge decree)
- Pellegrino v. Nesbit, 203 F.2d 463 (9th Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction limited to review of final order appealed from)