NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0550n.06
No. 21

- 116 4

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
I N RE: FLINT WATER CASES

.

_______________________________________________ LUKE WAID, P arent and N ext Fr iend of S

. R

. , a minor , et al. , Plaintiff s , ELNORA CARTHAN ; RHONDA KELSO , individually and as next friend of K.E.K., a minor child ; DARRELL DAVIS; BARBARA DAVIS ; MICHAEL SNYDE R; DAVID MUNOZ ; TIANTHA WILLIAMS , individually and as next friend of T.W., a minor child ; FRANCES GILCREA ST ; ANGELO’S CONEY ISLAND PALACE, INC. , Plaintiffs

- Appellees , DORIS COLLINS ; ROBIN PLEASANT ; JASON PHINISSEE ; LEE MCDONALD ; CONLEY COLLISION, INC. , Proposed Intervenors Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. RICHARD DALE SNYDER, former Governor; et al. , Defendants

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

OPINION

B efore : SUHRHEINRICH , STRANCH, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. JANE B. STRANCH , Circuit Judge . T he Flint Water Crisis and its revelations concerning the unsafe level s of lead in the Flint, Michigan water supply sparked both federal and state litigation. See In re Flint Water Cases , 960 F.3d 303, 310 (6th Cir. 2020). After years ofNo. 2 1

- 116 4 , Waid, et al. v. Richard Snyder, et al.

- 2

- coordination among th e federal and state court cases and negotiation among the parties , class plaintiffs and co

- liaison counsel for individual plaintiffs in the se coordinated cases reached a $641.25 million partial sett lement agreement with certain defendants , which was presented to the
court in the Waid case in November 2020

. P laintiffs in a state court lawsuit separate from the
coordinated cases

— Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant, Jason Phinisee, Lee McDonald, and Conley
C ollision, Inc. (the “Collins Plaintiffs”)

— moved to intervene in th is federal lawsuit with the goal of objecting to the proposed settlement and creating a new settlement subclass. The district court
denied the motion , and the Collins Plaintiffs appealed

. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion to intervene

. I. BACKGROUND In 2016, the Collins Plaintiffs filed a class action a sserting an unjust enrichment claim against the City of Flint in the Genesee County Circuit Court of Michigan . The Collins Plaintiffs

s ought reimbursement from the City for residential and commercial customers’ payments for unpotable water during the Flint Water Crisis. As the Collins Plaintiffs case proceed ed, the
coordinated cases against the City of Flint and other defendants also wound their way through state
and federal courts. See In re Flint Water Cases , No. 18

- 10726, 2020 WL 1503256, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Ma r. 27, 2020). The Collins Plaintiffs’ case was not part of the coordinate d state and federal Flint Water Crisis proceedings. In November 2020, class plaintiffs and co

- liaison counsel for individual plaintiffs in the coordinated litigation agreed to a par tial settlement with the City of Flint, the state of Michigan,
and other defendants. The district court granted preliminary approv al of the proposed S ettlement Agreement

. To comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (e) , Articles XIX and XX of the
pr oposed Settlement A greement provided for both an opt

- out procedure for requests to be excluded
from the S ettlement C lass and a procedure for presenting objections to the S ettlement A greement

.No. 2 1

- 116 4 , Waid, et al. v. Richard Snyder, et al.

- 3

- In December 2020, the Collins Plaintiffs filed a motion for permissive intervention in this
federal case. The Collins Plaintiffs argued that they ha ve a substantial interest in the litigation because the release in the Settlement Agreement would prohibit them from pursuing their unjust
enrichment claim. The motion to intervene also raised objections to the process es and the contents of the proposed Settlement Agreement , including that : the “unjust enrichment customers” were not adequately represented in t he settlement negotiations; approving the S ettlement A greement ’s release of unjust enrichment claims would violate due process; and no part of the Settlement Agreement provided a refund for the contaminated water paid for by its recipients

. The district court denied the motion , reasoning that intervention was unnecessary because

t he proposed S ettlement A greement includes a process “by which individuals can either choose to participate in the settlement or continue to pursue their claims” and that the Coll ins Plaintiffs already had the right to object to the Settlement Agreement under Rule 23 (e)(5)

. This appeal
followed.
II. ANALYSIS The Collins Plaintiffs sought only permissive intervention and made no argument that they are entitled to intervene as a matter of right. Rule 24(b) allows for permissive intervention if the district court, acting in its discretion, concludes that a poten tial intervenor’s timely motion shows that the individual “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” and whose intervention will not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication or the original parties’ rights .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). “We review the denial of permissive intervention for a ‘clear abuse of discretion,’ reversing only if ‘left with the definite and firm conviction’ that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Loc. 1 v. Husted , 515 F. App’x 539, 541 (6th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Coal. to Def. Affirmative Action v.
Granholm , 501 F.3d 775, 784 (6th Cir. 2007)).No. 2 1

- 116 4 , Waid, et al. v. Richard Snyder, et al.

- 4

- The district court was reasonable in denying the Collins Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene . In their appeal, t he Collins Plaintiffs simply reiterate their merits arguments about the proposed Settlement Agreement, and do not point to any abuse of discretion. They fail to address the district court’s explanation of their rights to object to or opt

- out of the s ettlement , either of which is
available to them in accordance with the terms of the proposed S ettlement A greement and Rule 23(e)(5). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5). The Collins Plaintiffs need not interven e to put their objections before th e district court

. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion to
intervene.