Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. Sistema De Retiro De Los Empleados Del Gobierno Y La Judicatura, 637 F.3d 10

Intervenor-appellants are twenty current/former Puerto Rico Telephone Co. employees seeking to intervene in a suit where the district court declared Act 234 preempted by ERISA by consent of the parties.
Act 234 allows eligible PRTC employees to switch back to the government-run Sistema de Retiro plan, subject to repayment of past contributions with interest and a specified payment plan.
PRTC sued to have Act 234 preempted by ERISA; the district court granted a declaratory judgment to the same effect based on the parties’ consent, and intervention was denied without explanation.
Intervenors argued they should be allowed to participate to challenge the preemption ruling; the district court gave no rationale for denial and did not conduct a hearing.
The First Circuit remanded to determine whether to allow intervention now or to permit their separate action, emphasizing a full opportunity to litigate the preemption issue.
The court stated it did not decide the merits of ERISA preemption and that intervention should be considered to give Intervenors a meaningful chance to press their Act 234 claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness and prejudice of intervention	Intervenors untimely; delay prejudices existing parties.	Timeliness is a discretionary matter; district court has deference.	Remand for reconsideration; timeliness analysis required with prejudice factors.
Interest and likelihood that disposition would impair intervenors' ability to protect their interests	Intervenors have a direct interest in Act 234’s status.	No meaningful interest affected by the judgment.	Intervenors have a protectable interest warranting further consideration on remand.
Adequacy of representation by existing parties	Existing parties should adequately represent all interests.	Representations are adequate; intervention unnecessary.	Adequacy not clearly satisfied; remand to assess representation concerns.
Effect of a consent-declared preemption judgment on intervenors	Judgment rests on parties’ consent and should bind those parties.	Judgment should extinguish the issue as to all; intervenors not adversaries.	Consent judgment does not preclude meaningful relitigation; remand to permit intervention or separate action.
Proper path to adjudicate Act 234 preemption	Intervention unnecessary; separate action is sufficient.	Intervention or separate action could be efficient; district court may choose either.	Intervenors entitled to one opportunity to litigate preemption, via intervention or separate action; remand to decide mechanism.

Fiandaca v. Cunningham, 827 F.2d 825 (1st Cir. 1987) (timeliness measures prejudice, not a rigid time constraint)
R&G Mortgage Corp. v. Federal Loan Mortgage Corp., 584 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (intervention standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Greenblatt, 964 F.2d 1227 (1st Cir. 1992) (timeliness measured by prejudice to existing parties)
Culbreath v. Dukakis, 630 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1980) (purpose of timeliness to prevent prejudice and delays)
NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1973) (late intervention may disrupt proceedings; timeliness concerns prejudice)
Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Ret. Plan, 521 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2008) (timeliness weighed against prejudice to determine intervention)
Langton v. Hogan, 71 F.3d 930 (1st Cir. 1995) (litigation efficiency and intervenor rights considerations)