# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 25 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tol an daOsb y , in di vi du al ly, an d o n b eh al f of a cl as s o f ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed ; Ret a Ma ss in g; Nico le Mart in ; Ca te nya Peak ; Ki m be rly Fuh r; C aro l Li nd se y ; Al ic e Rubl e; And rea Hen sl ey ; Art hu r Jo hn so n; Bren da Jo hn so n; Ang el a Turne r; C aro l Co x; Karen Bel tz ; Lo laKun kl e; Ant juan Sh aw; J am es Eric Weat he rwax ; Li sa Bu tl er; Mel vi n M ars ha ll , Jr.; Lol it a Lou is ; J oa n J od ie Euri tt ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees ,

v.

Dan ie l Ba rel a; Erica Beg ay , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lIn te rv en or pl ai nt if f s - App el la nt s.
Ci ti gr ou p, In c.; C it ib an k, N.A.; Ci ti co rp Cred itServ ic es , Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - St . Jo se ph

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 2 5, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Apri l 1 , 20 13 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Dan ie l Bare la an d Eric a Beg ay ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al , as un ti m el y , 1 of th ei r m ot io n to in te rv en e in a co ll ect iv e act io n un de r th e Fai r Lab or St an da rd s Act (Osb y cas e). Hav in g co nd uc te d care fu l rev ie w, we can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed i t s d i s c r e t io n in co nc lu di ng th at th e m ot io n to in te rv en e was un ti m el y

. See Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od of th e Heart la nd v. Hein em an , 66 4 F.3 d 71 6, 71 8 (8 th Ci r 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Am

. Ci vi l Lib ert ie s Uni on of Mi nn es ot a v. Tarek ib n Ziyad Acad ., 64 3 F.3 d 10 88 , 10 94 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (fac to rs ). Giv en th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n t o i nt erv en e, th e co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed ap pe ll an ts ’ rel at ed req ue st s to

un se al th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t an d to st ay t h e f i l i n g of no ti ces , a nd th e co ur t al so pr op erl y de ni ed as m oo t ap pe ll an ts ’ req ue st fo r pr el im in ary inj unc tiv e re li ef. Bec au se
we affi rm th e de ni al of in te rv en ti on , we d o n o t reac h ap pe ll an ts ’ ch al le ng es to th e

m eri t s o f th e di st ric t co ur t’s ot he r ru li ng s in th e Osb y cas e, in cl ud in g th e co urt’s

au th or it y to rece rti fy th e cl as s aft er in it ia l se tt l e m en t was reac he d. See Pl an ne d Pare n t ho od , 66 4 F.3 d at 71 9 n.3 (wh ere di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed m ot io n to in te rv en e, ap pe al s co urt wou ld no t reac h pr os pe ct iv e in te rv en or ’s arg ume n t s
co nc ern in g co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on ); Li t t l e R o c k Sch

. Dis t. v. Nor th Lit tl e Ro ck Sch

. Dis t., 37 8 F.3 d 77 4, 77 9, 78 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (wh ere m ot io n to in te rv en e was pr op erl y de ni ed , ap pe al s co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er m eri ts of jud gm en t in cas e whe re in te rv en ti on was de ni ed ; “ on ly a pa rty to a la wsu i t may ap pe al fro m an ad ve rs e jud g men t ” )

. W e al so do no t reac h th e ne wly rai se d arg um en t in th e rep ly br ie f. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Ho n or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i.
-2

-