2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-23-2009 

# P et O wne r C l a s s P l aint i ff

s v . M e nu F o o d s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1580

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P e t O wne r C l as s P l aint i ff

s v . M e nu F ood s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 613. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/613NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1580

_____________ I N R E : P E T F OOD P RO DUC T S L I AB I L I T Y L I T I GAT I ON

DO NA LD R . EAR L,

A ppel l ant (P u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 1 2 (a)) ( A ppel l anti s “an obj ect orand nonpart yi n i nt er es t ”)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 02867) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember22, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM D o n a ld E a rl, p ro se , ap p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to in ter v e n e a n d h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n to v a c a te. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e sh a ll2

a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. T hi s cas e r el at es t o a ci vi l cl as s act i on pr oduct s l i abi l i t yl aw s ui tfi l ed i n t he D i s tr i ct o f N e w Je rse y , an d c u rre n tlyo n a p p e a l. S e e In R e : P e t F o o d P ro d u c ts L iab ili ty L i t i gati on , D . N . J. C i v. N o. 07 -cv- 02 86 7; C . A . N o. 08 -4741 & 08 -4779 . T hat s uitarose outof a M ar ch 2007 r eca l l of petfood pr oduct s thatal l egedl ycont ai ned cont ami nat ed w h ea t gluten an d /or ri ce p rotein c o n ce n tr ate o b tai n ed fro m C h ina. P lai n ti ff s filed m o re t han one hundr ed l aw s ui t s agai ns ts ever al defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng M enu Foods , one of the m a n u f a c tu re rs o f

th e re c a lle d p e t f

o o d p ro d u c ts . A s a partof di s covery , M enu Foods and s ever al ot herdefe ndant s s t or ed l ar ge quant i t i es of var i ous r eca l l ed food pr oduct s . T hos e pr oduct s w er e di vi ded i nt o t hr ee cat egor i es : 1) cas es of petfood s ubj ectt o t he r eca l l ( “or gani zed i nvent ory ”) ; 2) thous ands of pounds of unpr oces s ed, per i s habl e r aw w heatgl ut en; and 3) cas es cont ai ni ng r eca l l ed a n d u n r e c a l l e d p e tf

o o d , p e tf

o o d ma d e b yo t h e rc o mp a n i e s , a n d o t h e ri t e ms (“u n o rga n ized inv en tory ”). T h e d ef en d an ts sou g h t an o rde r fro m the D istri ct C o u rt perm i t t i ng t hem t o l i m i tt he amountof m at er i al theyhad t o s t or e. O n D ece m ber18, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or dergr ant i ng the def endant s ’ m ot i on, w hi ch al l ow ed them t o r et ai n a s t at i s t i cal l ys i gni fi cantr epr es ent at i ve s ampl i ng of the or gani zed i nvent oryand t o di s pos e of the r emai ni ng r eca l l ed petfood, the r aw w heatgl ut en and the unor gani zedD efe ndant s ar gued thi s w as done s o as t o l i m i tthe s i gni fi cantcos t s of s t or i ng the 1 m a te ri a ls a n d to d is p o s e o f m a te ri a ls th a t h a d b e c o m e a p u b lic h e a lth h a z a rd . A tno poi nthas E ar l everbeen a part yt o t he cl as s act i on l aw s ui ti n t he PetFood 2 R e c a ll l iti g a tio n . F u rth e rm o re , the p e t f o o d in E a rl’s c a se w a s m a n u f a c tu re d a n d so ld befor e the per i od s ubj ectt o t he r eca l l , al t hough i ti s uncl earfr om the r ecor d exac t l yhow lo n g b e f o re th e re c a ll. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f

W a sh in g to n f

o u n d th a t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt h a d n o t ab u se d its 3 di s cr et i on i n ent er i ng t he di s pos al or der . E ar l , i thel d, had hi s ow n s ampl es of the ca t food fr om t he r el evanter a, and had nots how n “thathi s pl an t o r etr i eve 500 s ampl es fr om t he unor gani zed i nvent or y , w i t houtanym ethodol ogyes t abl i s hi ng how thes e s ampl es w oul d be r epr es ent at i ve, w oul d l ead t o admi s s i bl e evi dence . ” 3 in v e n to ry. N o n e o f

th e p la in tif

f s in th e c la s s o b

je c te d to th e C o u rt ’s o rd e r. 1 M e a n w h ile, in W a sh in g to n S tate , A p p e llan t D o n a ld E a rl h a d in iti a ted a se p a ra te l aw s ui tal l egi ng t hathi s cathad di ed af t ercons um i ng petfood m anufa ctur ed byM enu Foods a nd s ol d byT he K r ogerC om pany , a gr ocerys t or e. M enu Foods not i fi ed Ear l of 2 t he N ew J er s eyD i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derperm i t t i ng the di s pos al of the unor gani zed i nvent or y . E ar l fi l ed an obj ect i on i n the D i s t r i ctC our t , ar gui ng thatthe unor gani zed i nvent or yw as m at er i al t o hi s cas e and s houl d notbe des t r oy ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s obj ect i on. M enu Foods t hen fi l ed a mot i on i n t he Super i orC our tof W as hi ngt on for perm i s s i on t o di s pos e of the unor gani zed i nvent oryas i tr el at ed t o E ar l ’ s cas e, w hi ch the cour tgr ant ed. E ar l at t empt ed t o r ever s e the pr es ervat i on or der , butw as deni ed bythe W as hi ngt on s t at e court s . M enu Foods compl et ed i t s di s pos al of the unor gani zed 3 in v e n to ry in J u n e 2 0 0 8 . E ar l t hen r etur ned t o t he N ew J er s eyD i s t r i ctC our t , w her e i n J anuary2009, he4

fi l ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on t o vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s pos i ng of the u n o rg a n iz e d m a te ri a ls , a n d a m o tio n to in te rv e n e a s a m a tte r o f ri g h t in th e c la s s a c tio n . H ow ever , E ar l fi l ed hi s m ot i ons near l ytw o m ont hs aft erthe D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed a f i nal ju d g m e n t in th e u n d e rl y in g P e t F o o d R e c a ll L itig a tio n a n d a f te r t h e c a s e w a s o n a p p e a l. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i ons , fi ndi ng thathe di d notdemonstr at e a s uffi ci ent interest i n the u n o rga n ized inv en tory . Italso d en ied h is m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n . E arl f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. Thi s Cour tr e vi e w s t he de ni a l of a mot i on t o i nt e r ve ne un de rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 24( a) ( 2) foran abus e of di s cr et i on and s houl d r ever s e onl yi f the D i s t r i ctC our t“has a p p lied a n im p ro p e r le g a l sta n d a rd o r re a c h e d a d e c isio n [ th e C o u rt is] c o n f id e n t is inco rrect. ” U n it ed S tat es v . A lcan A lum inu m , Inc . , 2 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); s e e a ls o L ib e rt yM u t. I n s . C o . v . T re e s d a le , In c ., 4 1 9 F .3 d 2 1 6 , 2 2 0 n .4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A l i t i gan tseeki ng i nterven t i on as a m at t er of ri gh tun der Fed . R . C i v. P . 24 (a) (2) m ust es t abl i s h: “1) a t i m el yappl i cat i on forl eave t o i nt ervene, 2) a s uffi ci enti nt er es ti n t he under l y i ng l i t i gat i on, 3) a thr eatt hatthe i nt er es tw i l l be i m pai r ed oraff ect ed bythe di s pos i t i on of the under l y i ng act i on, and 4) thatthe exi s t i ng par t i es t o t he ac t i on do not adequa t el yr epr es entt he pr os pect i ve i nt ervenor ’ s i nt er es t s . ” Tre es dal e, 419 F. 3d at220 ( ci t i ng K l ei s s l erv. U ni t ed St at es For es tSer v. , 157 F. 3d 964, 969 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ) . E ach of t hes e r equi r ement s “mustbe mett o i nt ervene a s of r i ght . ” M ount ai n T op C ondo. A s s ’ n v. D a v e S ta b b e rt M a s te r B u ild e r, I n c ., 7 2 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ).5

T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed the m oti on t o int ervene o n the groun d thatE arl ’s i nter est w as i ns uffi ci entt o w arr anti nt ervent i on s t at i ng thatE ar l had not“demonstr at ed thathe has an i nt er es ti n t he ‘ unor gani zed i nvent ory ’ r equi r i ng thatthi s C our tvaca t e i t s pr i or or der s r egar di ng t hati nvent or y . ” I tt hen deni ed hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatE ar l di d nots how an i nt er es ti n t he unor gani zed i nvent ory , as des cr i bed bel ow , butw i l l al s o aff i r m on t he bas i s thatE ar l ’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene w as not t i m el yfi l ed. See Tours cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( s t at i ng th a t th e C o u rt m a ya f

f ir m a n o rd e r o n a n yg ro u n d th a t is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd ). H er e, E ar l fi l ed hi s m ot i ons t o i nt ervene a nd vaca t e nea r l ytw o m ont hs aft erthe D i s t r i ctC our thad ent er ed a f i nal j udgm enti n t he under l y i ng PetFood R eca l l L i t i gat i on, a nd be y on d the t hi r t y - da ys t a tut oryt i me pe r i od fo rfi l i ng a n a pp e a l . Se e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4 (a). H e d id n o t fi le his m o ti o n to interv en e f o r pu rpo ses o f a p p ea li n g the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fi nal j udgm ent , butforpurpos es of vac at i ng an or derthathad no ef fec ton t he out come of t he under l y i ng l aw s ui t . See H al derm an v. Pennhur s tSt at e Sch. & H os p. , 612 F. 2d 131, 134 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( “C er t ai nl y , an ef for tt o i nt ervene a ft era j udgm enthas become fi nal . . . pr es ent s an extr eme exampl e of unt i m el i nes s . . . . W her e the purpos e of a m ot i on t o i nt ervene i s t o obt ai n appel l at e r evi ew of a di s t r i ctcour tor derdet erm i ni ng the s t atus of a cl as s , t he mot i on m aybe cons i der ed t i m el yi f fi l ed w i t hi n t he t i m e l i m i tforfi l i ng a n o tic e o f a p p e a l.” ) ( c itin g U n ite d A ir lin e s , In c ., v . M c D o n a ld , 4 3 2 U .S . 3 8 5 , 3 9 2 (1 9 7 7 )) . A s a re s u lt, E a rl ’s m o tio n to in te rv e n e w a s u n tim e ly.I n hi s br i ef, E ar l al s o ar gues t hat : 1) M enu Foods at t orney s vi ol at ed the R ul es of 4 P rof essio n al C o n d u ct byfil ing a m o ti o n to d estroyev iden ce ; and 2 ) th at th e D istri ct C o u rt di d nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on orl egal author i t yt o gr anta mot i on t o des t r oy evi dence . W e w i l l notcons i dert hes e ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof ourhol di ng thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e n ie d h is m o tio n s to in te rv e n e a n d v a c a te . W e al s o gr antt he A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of the opi ni ons fi l ed by 5 t he court s of W as hi ngt on s t at e conc erni ng E ar l ’ s at t empt s t o pr eventthe des t ruct i on of t he evi dence . W e al s o gr antappel l ee’ s and appe l l ant ’ s m ot i ons t o fi l e s uppl ement al a p p e n d ic e s . 6 W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatE ar l di d notdemonstr at e a s uffi ci ent i nt er es ti n t he l i t i gat i on t o w arr anti nt ervent i on. T he purpos e of hi s m ot i on t o i nt ervene w as t o obt ai n an or dervaca t i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s D ece m ber18, 2007 or derauthor i zi ng t he des t ruct i on of the unor gani zed i nvent ory . N one of the pl ai nt i ffs obj ect ed t o t hator der an d M en u F o o d s d estroy ed the in v en toryin Ju n e 2 0 0 8 , n ea rl yn ine m o n ths b ef o re E arl fi l ed hi s m ot i on t o i nt ervene t o pr eventi t s des t ruct i on. A s a r es ul t , he had no s uffi ci ent in ter e st in th e u n d e rly in g lit ig a tio n . S in c e E a rl c o u ld n o t in ter v e n e , h e w a s n o t a p a rtyto t he l aw s ui tand the D i s t r i ctC our thad no choi ce butt o denyhi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. 4 M oreove r, even i f t he D i stri ctC ou rtcou l d h ave g rant ed h i s R ule 60(b) m oti on , t o d o so w oul d have be en meani ngl es s once the unor gani zed i nvent oryhad bee n des t r oy ed. In c o n c lu sio n , w e a g re e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e n ied E a rl’s m o tio n s to i nt e r ve ne a nd t o v a c a t e . Cos t s w i l l be a s s e s s e d t o the a pp e l l a nt . Se e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 39( a) ( 2) ; L A R 39. 5