NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 21a0550n.06

No. 21-1164

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES.

_______________________________________________

LUKE WAID, Parent and Next Friend of S.R., a minor, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs,

ELNORA CARTHAN; RHONDA KELSO, individually 

and as next friend of K.E.K., a minor child; DARRELL 

DAVIS; BARBARA DAVIS; MICHAEL SNYDER;

DAVID MUNOZ; TIANTHA WILLIAMS, individually 

and as next friend of T.W., a minor child; FRANCES 

GILCREAST; 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

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The Flint Water Crisis and its revelations 

concerning the unsafe levels 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 of 
No. 21-1164, Waid, et al. v. Richard Snyder, et al.

-2-

coordination among the federal and state court cases and negotiation among the parties, class 

plaintiffs and co-liaison counsel for individual plaintiffs in these coordinated cases reached a 

$641.25 million partial settlement agreement with certain defendants, which was presented to the 

court in the Waid case in November 2020. Plaintiffs in a state court lawsuit separate from the 

coordinated cases—Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant, Jason Phinisee, Lee McDonald, and Conley 

Collision, Inc. (the “Collins Plaintiffs”)—moved to intervene in this 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 asserting an unjust enrichment claim 

against the City of Flint in the Genesee County Circuit Court of Michigan. The Collins Plaintiffs 

sought reimbursement from the City for residential and commercial customers’ payments for 

unpotable water during the Flint Water Crisis. As the Collins Plaintiffs case proceeded, 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. Mar. 27, 2020). The Collins Plaintiffs’ case was not part of the coordinated 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 partial settlement with the City of Flint, the state of Michigan, 

and other defendants. The district court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement

Agreement. To comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), Articles XIX and XX of the 

proposed Settlement Agreement provided for both an opt-out procedure for requests to be excluded 

from the Settlement Class and a procedure for presenting objections to the Settlement Agreement. 
No. 21-1164, 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 have 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 processes and the contents 

of the proposed Settlement Agreement, including that: the “unjust enrichment customers” were 

not adequately represented in the settlement negotiations; approving the Settlement Agreement’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 

the proposed Settlement Agreement includes a process “by which individuals can either choose to 

participate in the settlement or continue to pursue their claims” and that the Collins 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 potential 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. 21-1164, 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, the 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 settlement, either of which is 

available to them in accordance with the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement and Rule 

23(e)(5). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5). The Collins Plaintiffs need not intervene to put their 

objections before the district court.

III. CONCLUSION 

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

intervene.