Shy v. Navistar International Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16236
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Committee is administrator and fiduciary of Navistar Retiree Supplemental Benefit Program under a 1993 Settlement Agreement approved by the court.
- Settlement terminates the retirees’ class action and provides Base and Supplemental Plans with Navistar contributing to both; the Supplemental Plan is a trust administered by retirees.
- Court approved the Settlement on June 8, 1993 and entered final judgment as a consent decree.
- Committee filed a Motion to Intervene under Rule 24 on March 23, 2012; Navistar opposed; Committee did not file a pleading with the motion.
- Court sustains the Committee’s Motion to Intervene but orders a pleading under Rule 24(c) filed within 10 days to meet Rule 24 requirements.
- Settlement Agreement reserves exclusive jurisdiction in this Court to enforce, interpret, and implement the Agreement except for eligibility disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of intervention | Committee argues timeliness given ongoing, post-judgment duties | Navistar argues delay and lack of pleading doom intervention | Timely under the circumstances; affirmed intervention |
| Right to intervene for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement | Committee has substantial legal interest in administering the Supplemental Plan | Navistar contends adequate representation by existing parties | Intervention of right granted; Committee has substantial interest and potential impairment without intervention |
| Adequacy of representation by existing parties | Committee will protect retirees’ interests independently | Existing parties adequately represent the interest | Existing parties do not adequately represent retirees; adequate representation satisfied by Committee |
| Permissive intervention alternative | If not right, Committee should be allowed permissive intervention | Discretionary intervention not appropriate | Court would grant permissive intervention if needed; nonetheless, intervention of right applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467 (6th Cir.2000) (favorably recognizes broad intervention policy and timeliness evaluation)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.1999) (mandatory elements for intervention of right; each element must be satisfied)
- Blount-Hill v. Zelman, 636 F.3d 278 (6th Cir.2011) (timeliness factors guide intervention rulings)
- Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Commt., 425 F.3d 309 (6th Cir.2005) (overruled strict attachment of pleading; substance controls for intervention)
- Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343 (6th Cir.1989) (postjudgment intervention allowed)
- Shy v. Navistar Int’l Corp., 701 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.2012) (Navistar not entitled to deference; confirms Court’s jurisdiction to enforce Settlement)
- NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (1973) (timeliness as a threshold consideration for intervention)