Technology Training Associates, Inc., et a v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21205

Buccaneers sent unsolicited fax advertisements in 2009–2010; Cin-Q and Medical & Chiropractic (the movants) sued on behalf of a putative TCPA class in the Cin-Q case and sought class certification.
During ongoing litigation, an attorney left movants’ firm and later, at his new firm Bock Hatch, corresponded about finding another plaintiff to settle the case more cheaply.
Bock Hatch filed a separate class action (this case) alleging the same claims and announced a settlement with Buccaneers for up to $19.5 million that included a waiver of statute-of-limitations defenses and up to 25% in attorney’s fees.
After that settlement filing, movants sought to intervene in this case as class members under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) (intervention as of right); the district court denied intervention and preliminarily approved the settlement and class.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial de novo, found movants met Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements (timeliness, interest, impairment, and inadequate representation), and reversed and remanded with instructions to grant intervention as of right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether movants satisfied Rule 24(a)(2) to intervene as of right	Movants: timely, are class members with a binding interest, would be impaired by approval of the settlement, and existing class counsel inadequately represent them given evidence of collusion/undercutting	Plaintiffs/Buccaneers: Rule 23 procedural protections (objection rights, fairness hearing, fee awards) suffice; movants’ interests are not impaired and representation is adequate	Held: Movants met all four Rule 24(a)(2) prongs; intervention as of right required; district court erred in denying intervention
Whether Rule 23 protections alone defeat the impairment prong of Rule 24(a)(2)	Movants: Rule 23 protections do not prevent intervention where class members’ substantive rights risk being bound by an inadequate settlement	Buccaneers: Because Rule 23 provides procedural safeguards, movants cannot show their ability to protect interests would be impaired	Held: Rejected; Rule 23 protections do not categorically preclude intervention—where judgment will bind class members, impairment can be shown

Fox v. Tyson Foods, 519 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of intervention as of right)
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (class members have a right to intervene if existing representation is inadequate)
Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) (elements for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2))
United States v. City of Jackson, 519 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1975) (consent decree context distinguished where non-signatories were not bound)
In re Community Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) (in class-action context, typical Rule 24(a)(2) concerns are often met because absent members will be bound)