Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10571/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10571-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10571

Summary Calendar

STEPHANIE ODLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Et 

Al;

 Plaintiffs

ORALIA FLORES; ROSIE LUJAN; ALICE BISCARDI; DEBBIE 

HAYWORTH; BRENDA HENDERSON; LINDA MCFADDEN; MARGARITA 

MURILLO; SANDRA PHELAN, 

 Intervenor Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-2954

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10571 Document: 00513310683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2015
No. 15-10571

2

PER CURIAM:*

This case involves allegations that Wal-Mart systematically 

discriminated against female employees in its Texas stores. Stephanie Odle 

and other named plaintiffs brought this lawsuit as a putative class action, but 

the district court dismissed their class allegations on statute of limitations 

grounds. The named plaintiffs eventually settled with Wal-Mart, and 

voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The district court entered 

final judgment on May 15, 2015. On June 2, 2015, Appellants—none of whom 

were named plaintiffs—moved in the district court to intervene for purposes of 

appealing the dismissal of the class allegations. Ten days later, Appellants 

filed a notice of appeal. The district court had not ruled on the motion to 

intervene when the notice of appeal was filed, and after that filing had no 

power to do so. See Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897, 

929 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[T]he filing of a valid notice of appeal deprives the district 

court of jurisdiction to hear a motion to intervene.”); 20 James W. Moore, et al., 

Moore’s Federal Practice § 303.10[1][b][iv] (3d ed.) (noting that a putative 

intervenor’s filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction 

to act on a pending motion to intervene). 

Unnamed members of a putative class may intervene after the entry of 

final judgment to appeal an earlier denial of class certification. United 

Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 394–96 (1977). A leading treatise 

states that when—as here—a would-be intervenor files a timely notice of 

appeal before the district court acts on a post-judgment motion to intervene, 

“the case may be remanded to the district court to allow the court to hear the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-10571 Document: 00513310683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2015
No. 15-10571

3

motion.” Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, § 303.10[1][b][iv]. We followed that 

course in a similar case, dismissing an appeal filed by putative intervenors who 

intended to appeal a class decertification order and remanding so that the 

district court could consider the motion to intervene. See Nichols v. Mobile Bd. 

of Realtors, Inc., 675 F.2d 671, 673 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (affirming after the 

district court granted the motion to intervene on remand and the intervenors

filed a new notice of appeal); see also Hobson v. Hansen, 44 F.R.D. 18, 21 

(D.D.C. 1968) (noting that a sister circuit had remanded motions to intervene 

for hearing in district court). And the parties agree that it is proper to take 

the same action here. 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED and the case is REMANDED to 

the district court to consider the motion to intervene.1 

 

1 We express no opinion on the merits of the motion to intervene. A district court’s 

denial of a motion to intervene is, of course, itself an appealable order. Walker v. City of 

Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir. 1988); see also McDonald, 432 U.S. at 390 (noting 

that would-be intervenors had appealed “the denial of intervention as well as the denial of 

class certification to the Court of Appeals”). 

 Case: 15-10571 Document: 00513310683 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2015