322 F.R.D. 647
D.N.M.2017Background
- This is a putative New Mexico wage-and-hour class action against Tri-State Careflight and an individual defendant by flight nurses, paramedics, and pilots alleging unpaid overtime under the NMMWA and unjust enrichment. Sixty-nine proposed intervenors seek to replace prior named plaintiffs who settled.
- Original plaintiffs settled in 2015; a second set of named plaintiffs intervened and then accepted Rule 68 offers in November 2016; the court entered final judgment shortly thereafter.
- Thirteen days after the Rule 68 acceptances (six days after entry of final judgment), 69 putative class members filed a Rule 24(b) motion to permissively intervene as class representatives; a supplemental motion added additional intervenors.
- Defendants opposed post-judgment intervention as untimely and argued the case was effectively over and/or mooted by the Rule 68 judgments, and questioned jurisdiction over some intervenors.
- The court (Browning, J.) granted the motions to intervene, holding it has CAFA jurisdiction, the intervenors possess a "nascent" Article III interest that attached at the action’s start, intervention need not wait for Rule 60 relief, and post-judgment intervention was timely given lack of undue prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over proposed intervenors | Intervenors: CAFA provides jurisdiction because at least one class member is a different citizen and amount in controversy exceeds $5M | Defendants: some intervenors share citizenship with defendants; jurisdiction unclear | Court: CAFA jurisdiction exists (minimal diversity shown; aggregated amount plausibly > $5M) |
| Mootness after named plaintiffs accepted Rule 68 offers and final judgment | Intervenors: class members have a "nascent" interest from filing so offers to named plaintiffs do not moot class claims while certification pending | Defendants: Rule 68 satisfaction and final judgment eliminate live controversy; case is over | Court: Defendant offers/settlements did not render intervenors’ claims moot because the class interest inheres from inception (Lucero principle) |
| Need to obtain relief from final judgment (Rule 60) before intervening | Intervenors: they lack standing to bring Rule 60 and need not vacate judgment to move to intervene | Defendants: post-judgment intervention improper; Rule 60 should be used to reopen | Court: Intervenors need not first obtain Rule 60 relief; a nonparty must intervene first to obtain standing to seek relief under Rule 60 if desired later |
| Timeliness and prejudice of post-judgment permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)) | Intervenors: filed promptly after named plaintiffs accepted offers; intervention will not change issues or prejudice defendants | Defendants: interventions came after final judgment and more than two years into litigation; allowing them prejudices the settlement and undermines finality | Court: Despite disfavoring post-judgment intervention, motion was timely (filed promptly after settlement/entry), claims share common questions, and intervention would not unduly prejudice defendants; intervention granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2011) (a proposed class’s Article III interest "attaches" at the filing such that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer to a named plaintiff does not necessarily moot class claims)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1977) (permissive intervention by putative class members can be timely even after named plaintiffs settle; intervention may preserve class interests)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (a court lacks ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms absent incorporation of the agreement or other basis for federal jurisdiction)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (standards for "excusable neglect" and limits on using Rule 60(b) where other Rule 60(b) subsections apply)
- Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1992) (Rule 68 offers do not necessarily moot class claims when certification issues are pending)
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (discusses relation-back doctrine and circumstances where Rule 68 offers may or may not moot class claims)