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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 30 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: W ho le sa le Groc ery Pro du ct s An ti tru st Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Co le ll a’s Su pe r Mar ke t, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Mov an t - Ap

pe ll an t

v.

Su pe rVal u, In c.; C &S Who le sa le Groc ers , Inc

.

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 31 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: W ho le sa le Groc ery Pro du ct s An ti tru st Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

JF M Ma rk et , Inc .; MF J M ark et , Inc

.

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Su pe rVal u, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Marc h 1 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Sev eral ret ai l gro cers su ed two la rg e fu ll -li ne who le sa le gr oc ers fo r vi ol at io n of th e Sh erm an Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, et se q. The ret ai le rs so ug ht to rep res en t two

pu ta ti ve cl as se s, th e Mi dwe st cl as s an d th e New Eng la nd cl as s. Ea ch cl as s ha d an Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss of ret ai le rs who ha d arb it rat io n ag reem en ts wit h th ei r res pe ct iv e who le sa le r. The di s t ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e pu rp or te d rep res en ta ti ve s of th e 1
Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss es fro m th e cas e, an d we rev ers ed

. See In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., No. 09 -MD-2 09 0, 20 11 W L 95 58 05 4, at *1 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ly 5,
20 11 ) (u nr ep or te d) ; Kin g Co le Fo od s, In c. v. Su pe rVal u, In c. (In re W ho le sa le
Gro cery Prod s. An ti tru st Lit ig .), 70 7 F .3d 91 7, 9 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

By th en th e di st ric t co ur t ha d reject ed th e pr op os ed Mi dwe st an d New Eng la nd

c la ss es an d gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. See I n r e W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., No. 09 -MD-2 09 0, 20 12 W L 30 31 08 5, at *8 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ly 25
, 20 12 ) (u nr ep or te d) ; In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., No. 09 -MD-2 0 90
, 20 13 W L 14 02 85
, at *1 (D. Mi nn

. Ja n. 11
, 20 13 )

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-(u nr ep or te d)

. The Mi dwe st cl as s rep res en ta ti ve ap pe al ed
, bu t th e New Eng la nd cl as s

rep res en ta ti ve di d no t. W e rev ers ed
, or de rin g th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er a na rro wer Mi dwe st cl as s. See D & G, In c. v. Su pe rVal u, In c. (In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig .), 75 2 F.3 d 72 8, 72 9, 73 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). On rem an d, Co le ll a’s Su pe r Mar ke t, In c. (Co le ll a) m ov ed to in te rv en e to joi n MFJ Mar ke t, In c. an d JF M Mar ke t,
In c. (co ll ect iv el y , Vil la ge Mar ke t), th e New Eng l a n d Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss
rep res en ta ti ve , in se ek in g to cert ify a na rro wer New Eng la nd cl as s. The di st ric t co ur t d e n ie d th e m ot io n an d an no un ced it wou ld no t co ns id er an y ne w cl a s s o f N e w Eng la nd pl ai nt iff

s. Befo r e u s a re Vil la ge Mar ke t’s an d Co le ll a’s co ns ol id at ed

ap pe al s. 2

I. BACKGRO UND
In 20 03
, who le sa le gr oc ery su pp li ers Su pe rVal u, In c

. (Su pe rVal u) an d C&S
W ho le sa le Gro cers , In c. (C& S) (co ll ect iv el y , ap pe ll ees or who le sa le rs ) en te red in to

an Ass et Exc ha ng e Agr eem en t (AEA). C&S ha d rece nt ly pu rch as ed Fl e m in g Co m pa ni es , In c.’s (Fl em in g) Mi dwe st who le sa le gr oc ery bu si ne ss as se ts ou t of
ba nk ru pt cy

. In t h e A EA
, C&S so ld Fl em in g to Su pe rVal u an d C&S pu rch as ed
Su pe rVal u’s New Eng la nd bu si ne ss

. Am on g th e as se ts ex ch a ng ed were su pp ly

ag reem en ts an d arb it rat io n ag reem en ts be twee n each who le sa le r an d a nu m be r of it s
ret ai l cu st om ers (th e swa p)

. The AEA al so co nt ai ne d al le ge dl y se cret reci pr oc al no nco m pe te pr ov is io ns

. Sev eral ret ai le rs su ed Su pe rVal u an d C&S , a ll eg in g t h e A EA

W e ha ve ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on of Co le ll a’s ap pe al un de r 28 U.S. C

. § 12 91

. 2 S e e a l s o Am

. Ci vi l Lib ert ie s Uni on of Mi nn

. v. Tarek ib n Ziyad Acad
., 64 3 F

. 3 d 10 88
, 10 92 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t’s or de r de nyin g th e

. . . m ot io n to in te rv en e of rig ht is im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le as a fin al jud gm en t.”)

. W e ad dr es s ou r la ck of au th or it y to he ar Vil la ge Mar ke t’s ap pe al be lo w. W e ne ed no t de ci de whe th er th e rel ev an t t im e li m it is juri sd ic ti on al or c ou ld ha ve be en fo rfei te d, beca us e in th is

cas e it was ti m el y rai se d an d pr es erv ed

. Cf., e.g ., C oc o v

. I n c

. Vil l. of Bel le Terre, 44 8 F.3d 49 0, 49 1- 92 (2 d C ir. 2 00 6) (pe r cu ria m ) (res erv in g t he qu es ti on in si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces ).

-3

-vi ol at ed th e Sh erm an Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, et se q., be cau se it un la wfu ll y al lo cat ed th e

New Eng la nd m ark et to C&S a nd th e Mi dwe st m ark et to Su pe rVal u.

T he re ta ile r- pla int if

fs pr op os ed two cl as se s: Mi dwe st Su pe rV al u cu sto m er s an d
New Eng la nd C&S cu st om ers

. DeLuc a’s Co rp or at io n (DeLu ca) was th e pu ta t i ve New Eng la nd cl as s repr es en ta ti ve an d D&G, In c. (D&G) was th e pu ta ti ve Mi dwe st cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve . Each c la ss ha d a n “ Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss ” of ret ai le rs who ha d
arb it rat io n ag reem en ts wit h th ei r cu rren t who le sa le r du rin g th e cl as s pe rio d, an d th us

co ul d on ly su e th ei r pr e-s wap who le sa le r. Vil la ge Mar ke t was th e rep res en ta ti ve of
th e p ut at iv e New Eng la nd Arbi tra ti on Su bc la ss

.

In Ju ly 2 01 1, th e Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss es were di sm is se d fro m th e cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t ha vi ng de te rm in ed th e no ns ig na to ry de fen da nt s (th e pr e-s wap who le sa le rs ) co ul d each en fo rce ag ai ns t th e pl ai nt iff s th e arb it rat io n ag reem en ts th ey ha d as si gn ed to th e ot he r. See In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., 20 11
W L 95 58 05 4, at *3
, *6

. In Feb ru ary 20 13
, we rev ers ed

. See In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds . Ant it ru st Lit ig ., 70 7 F .3d at 9 19

.

By th e ti m e th e Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss es were rei ns ta te d in Feb ru ary 2 01 3, th e cl as s cert ifi cat io n fo r th e br oa de r New Eng la nd an d Mi dwe st cl as se s ha d be en de ni ed
,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t ha d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e de fen da nt s
ag a i n s t D &G an d DeLuc a as in di vi du al pl ai nt iff s (in Ju ly 20 12 an d Ja nu ary 20 13
,
res pe ct iv el y ). See In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it r u s t Lit ig
., 20 12 W L
30 31 08 5, at *8 ; In re Who le sa le Groc ery Pro ds . Ant it ru st Lit ig ., 20 13 W L 1 40 28 5,

at *1 . D&G app eal ed th e su m m ary jud gm en t ru li ng , bu t DeLu ca d id no t.

In May 20 14
, we affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e Mi d wes t cl as s
cert ifi cat io n, bu t rev ers ed an d rem an de d th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t D&G, an d or de red th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er a na rro wer cl as s of Mi dwe st pl ai nt iff s (Ch am pa ig n cl as s)

. See In re W ho le sa le Gro cery Pro ds

. Ant it ru st Lit ig
., 75 2 F.3 d at

-4

-73 6. Th e cas e was rem an de d o n Au gu st 26 , 2 01 4, aft er reh eari ng an d reh eari ng en

ba nc were d en ie d.

The i s s u e s o n rem an d were refe rred to a m ag is tra te

. The is su e of th e 3
Ch am pa ig n cl as s was pe nd in g, an d an ad di ti on a l c o mp l a in t ha d be en fil ed by two

pu ta ti ve cl as se s of Mi dwe st pl ai nt iff s. Nem ecek Mar ke ts , In c. (Nem ecek ) pr op os ed

to rep res en t a cl as s of ret ai le rs se rv ic ed by S up erVal u’s Green Bay, W is co ns in
, di st rib ut io n cen te r. Elk ho rn -Lue pt ows , In c., Je ffer so n Lue pt ows , In c., an d East Troy
Lue pt ows , In c. (co ll ect iv el y , Lue pt ows ) pr op os ed to re p r e s e n t a cl as s of ret ai le rs

se rv ic ed by Su pe rVal u’s Pl eas an t Prai rie
, W isc onsin
, di st rib ut io n cen te r. On Octo be r 24
, 20 14
, Co le ll a m ov ed to in te rv en e to se ek cert ifi cat io n of a na rro wer New Eng la nd
cl as s (Grea te r Bo st on cl as s) in co nc ert wit h Vil la ge Mar ke t, th e New Eng la n d
Arb it rat io n S ub cl as s re pr es en ta ti ve

.

The m ag is tra te jud ge pe rm it te d th e Mi dwe st ern C h a m pa ig n, Nem ecek
, an d
Lue pt ows pl a i n ti ffs to se ek cert ifi cat io n of th ei r na rro wer cl as se s. The m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed Co le ll a’s m ot io n to in te rv en e. The di st in gu is hi n g f a c t o r was th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of th e br oa de r New Eng la nd cl as s ha d ne ve r be en ap pe al ed

. W hi le we rem an de d th e qu es ti on of th e M i d w e s t cl as s cert ifi cat io n aft er D&G

ap pe al ed
, th ere was no su ch or de r rel at in g to th e New Eng la nd cl as s. The m ag is tra te jud ge no te d “ Defen da nt s hav e li ti ga te d th is m at te r wit ho ut th e in vo lv em en t of New Eng la nd Pl ai nt iff

s si nc e Feb ru ary 20 13 an d wit ho ut Co le ll a’s in vo lv em en t si nc e th e li ti ga ti on ’s in cep ti on .” The m ag is tra te jud ge de ci de d Co le ll a’s m ot io n was un ti m el y ,

an d ev en if it were ti m el y , Co le ll a wou ld ha ve no rig ht to in te rv en e. The m ag is tra te ju d ge ex pl ai ne d “ Co le ll a’s ha s no t pr ov id ed reas on fo r un du ly de la y in g it s at te m pt

to in te rv en e.

. . . If an un na m ed cl as s m em be r wis he d to ap pe al th e

. . . de ni al [o f cl as s

Mea nw hil e, the is su e of th e Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss es was ba ck be fo re th e di st ric t 3

co ur t on rem an d. The di st r i c t co ur t reject ed two al te rn at iv e th eo rie s of fere d by t he who le sa le rs in su pp or t of th ei r m ot io n to di sm is s th e Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss es , an d th e who le sa le rs ap pe al ed ag ai n. In a se pa rat e o pi ni on , we affi rm ed

.
-5

-cert ifi cat io n], it wou ld ha ve be en ap pr op ria te to se ek in te rv en ti on ” wit hi n th irt y da y s

of th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. Mo reo ve r, Co le ll a was n o t e n t i tl ed to in te rv en e as a

m at te r of rig ht be cau se it ha d no rec o g ni zed in te res t in th e li ti ga ti on si nc e th e New Eng la nd pl ai nt iff

s were ou t of th e cas e. The m ag is tra te jud ge reas on ed Co le ll a was free to fil e it s own su it an d wou ld su ffer “ no pre cl us iv e eff ect ” o f th e pr ev io us cas e si nc e Co le ll a was “ a n on -p art y an d a bs en t p ut at iv e cl as s m em be r.”

The pa rti es pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

ru li n g s

. S u p erVal u was co nc ern ed th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s or de r di d no t ex pl ic it ly
de te rm in e w h e t h er th e New Eng la nd pl ai nt iff s wou ld be pe rm it te d to se ek

cert ifi cat io n of a na rro wer cl as s an d req ue st ed th e di st ric t co ur t cl ari fy th ey co ul d no t. Th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th e m ag is tra te jud ge “ su ffi ci en tl y an d co rrec tl y de te rm in e d
th at th e New Eng la nd Pl ai nt iff s m ay no t rel it ig at e cert ifi cat io n fo r a New Eng la nd
Cl as s” an d ag reed wit h t h e mag i s tra te jud ge th at al lo win g Co le ll a to in te rv en e

“ ‘w ou ld gi ve New Eng la nd Pl ai nt iff s an un warra nt ed se co nd bi te at th e cl as scert ifi cat io n ap pl e.’” The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e New Eng la nd Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss ’s in te res ts were pr ot ect ed by th e br oa de r New Eng la nd cl as s ev en whi le th e

su bc la ss ha d be en di sm is se d fro m th e cas e an d no t y et rei ns ta te d. The di st ric t co ur t al so reject ed Co le ll a’s an d Vil la ge Mar ke t’s arg um en t th at D&G rep res en te d th e New
En g l a n d cl as s’s in te res ts whe n it ap pe al ed th e de ni al of cert ifi cat io n as to th e Mi dwe st cl as s. The di st ric t co u r t a ccep te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s r eco m m en da ti on th at th e Mi dwe st pl ai nt iff s b e p erm it te d t o s eek cert ifi cat io n o f na rro wer cl as se s.

Co le ll a an d Vil la ge Mar ke t (ap pe ll an ts ) ap pe al
, arg ui ng th ey sh o u l d no t be
bo un d by DeLuc a’s f

a i l u r e t o ap pe al th e de ni al of th e New Eng la nd cl as s
cert ifi cat io n, be cau se Vil la ge Mar ke t, as th e Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss rep res en ta ti ve , ha d
be en d i s miss ed fro m th e cas e an d was no t rei ns ta te d by ou r ru li ng un ti l aft er th e la rg er cl as s was de ni ed cert ifi cat io n.

-6

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. In terl oc uto ry Appea l o n Cla ss Certi fic at io n Exc ep t in a few sp eci al si tu at io ns , we do no t rev ie w di st ric t co ur t ru li ng s th at

are no t ye t f

in al

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 12 91
, 12 92

. W e “ m ay ,” ho wev er, “ pe rm it an
ap pe al fro m an or de r gr an ti ng or de nyin g cl as s- act io n cert ifi cat io n” un de r Fed eral
Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 23 (f), if th e wou ld -b e ap pe ll an t pe ti t i on s fo r pe rm is si on

“ wit hi n 14 da y s aft er th e or de r is en te red .” Vil la ge Mar ke t fil ed su ch a pe ti ti on aft er th e di st ric t co ur t en te red it s or de r refu si ng to co ns id er cert ifyin g th e Great er Bo st on cl as s. Tha t ru li ng di d no t pu rp or t to be “ an o r de r gr an ti ng or de nyin g cl as s- act io n 4

cert ifi cat io n.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 23 (f). Nor di d it fu nc ti on as on e, as by “ op en [in g] up [a] cl as s to in di vi du al s

. . . be y on d th e m or e li m it ed gr ou p [o rig in al ly in cl ud ed ],”
Glo ve r v. St an da rd Fed

. Ban k, 28 3 F.3 d 95 3, 95 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), or ot he rwis e

“ ‘m at eri al ly al te rin g a pr ev io us or de r gr an t in g or de nyin g cl as s cert ifi cat io n,’”
Ph il li ps v. Sh eri ff of Co ok Ct y ., 82 8 F.3 d 54 1, 55 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Mat z v. Hou se ho ld In t’l Tax Red uc ti on In v. Pl an , 68 7 F.3 d 82 4, 82 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 12 )). Rat he r, ri g h t o r wro ng , th e di st ric t co ur t em ph at ic al ly le ft th e st at us qu o— no cl as s
cert ifi cat io n fo r th e New Eng la nd pl ai nt iff s— un to uc he d (an d un to uc ha bl e ): “ th e de ni al of a New Eng la nd Cl as s was not ap pe al ed an d is fin al
, an d th e New Eng la nd
Pl ai nt iff s are not pe rm it te d to pu rs ue cl as s cert ifi cat io n of a na rro wer N ew Eng la nd
Cl as s.”

W e th eref

or e ha ve no d i s c r e t io n to he ar Vil la ge Mar ke t’s ap pe al un de r Ru le
23 (f), as ou r si st er ci rcu it s ha ve un an im ou sl y co nc lu de d in an al og ou s si tu at io ns

. See,

e.g ., id . a t 55 9- 60 (d is m is si ng an att em pt ed ap pe al be cau se “ th e d is tri ct co ur t m ad e

no ru li ng th at al te red
, in an y m ean in gf ul se ns e, it s earl ie r de ci si on ”); Nuc or Co rp

. v. Bro wn, 76 0 F

. 3 d 3 4 1
, 34 3 (4 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t’s po st -cer ti fic at io n

W e are no t bo un d by th e su m m ary de ci si on of an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l of th is 4

co ur t to gr an t Vil la ge Mar ke t’s pet it io n and do ck et it s app eal

. See In re Ro dr iq ue z, 25 8 F .3d 75 7, 7 58 -5 9 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ) (p er cu ria m ).

-7

-or de rs ne ve r al te red th e st at u s o f t h e [rel ev an t] cl as s an d th us were no t or de rs

gr an ti ng or de nyin g cert ifi cat io n as to th at cl as s.”) ; Fl ei sc hm an v. Alb an y Med

. Ct r., 63 9 F.3 d 28
, 30 -3 1 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ); In re DC W at er & Sewer Aut h., 56 1
F.3 d 4 94 , 49 6- 97 (D.C. Ci r. 20 09 ); Gut ie rrez v. J oh ns on & Jo hn so n, 5 23 F.3d 18 7,
19 4 (3 d Ci r. 20 08 ); Je nk in s v. Bel lS ou th Co rp ., 4 9 1 F

. 3 d 12 88 , 1 29 1- 92 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ); Carp en te r v. Bo ei ng Co
., 45 6 F.3 d 11 83
, 11 91 -9 2 (1 0th Ci r. 20 06 ); McNa m ara

v. Fel de rh of

, 41 0 F.3 d 27 7, 28 1 (5 th Ci r. 20 05 ). By it s cl ear te rm s Ru le 23 (f) ha s no
ap pl ic at io n in th e ab se nc e of “ an or de r gr anti ng or de nyin g cl as s- act io n cert ifi cat io n,”

an d th e on ly su ch or de r he re was th e di st ric t co ur t’s or ig in al reject io n of th e New Eng la nd cl as s, whi ch was en te red m an y m or e th an fo ur te en da y s be fo re Vil la ge Mar ke t fi le d i ts pe ti ti on

.

Tha t Vil la ge Mar ke t pl an ne d to se ek co ns id erat io n o f t he “ m uc h na rro wer”
Great er Bo st on cl as s, rat he r th an “ re-l it ig at [io n] [ o f ] t h e sa m e cl as s of al l New Eng la nd gro cers whi ch was p rev io us ly den ie d,” as e m ph as iz ed in it s b rie fin g, i s n o

reas on to tre at th e di st ric t co ur t’s la te r or de r a s “g r a n ti ng or de nyin g cl as s- act io n
cert ifi cat io n.” W ha t m at te rs is no t wha t Vil la ge Mar ke t wan te d, bu t wha t th e di st ric t

co ur t actu al ly di d in th e or de r at is su e. Oth erwi se , if a di ss at is fie d par ty co ul d rese t th e cl oc k si m

pl y by co m in g up wit h a ne w wa y o f d e f i n i n g a cl as s an d ha vi ng th e di st ric t co ur t re

ject i t, Ru le 23 (f)’s s tri ct ti m e li m it for see ki ng in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w of a cl as s- cert ifi cat io n de ci si on wou ld be so eas il y ci rcu m ve nt ed as to be pr act ic al ly

m ean in gl es s. See, e.g ., DC W at er & Sewer Aut h., 5 6 1 F.3 d at 49 6- 97 (“ To ho ld

ot he rwis e wou ld le av e Ru le 23 (f)’s de ad li ne to ot hl es s.”) ; Carp en te r, 45 6 F.3 d at 11 91 (“ W e reco gn iz e t h a t R u l e 23 (c)( 1) (C) pe rm it s th e di st ric t co ur t to al te r or am en d a
cert ifi cat io n de ci si on

. And pa rti es m ay su gg es t su ch ch an ge s as th e fact ua l reco rd

an d le ga l th eo rie s de ve lo p. All we are sa y in g is th at th ere can be no Ru le 23 (f) ap pe al
fro m th e de ni al of su ch a su gg es ti on

. An or de r th at le av es cl as s- ac t i o n st at us

un ch an g e d fro m wha t was de te rm in ed by a pr io r or de r is no t an or de r ‘gran ti ng or de nyin g cl as s act io n cert ifi cat io n.’”); cf. Fl ei sc hm an , 63 9 F.3 d at 30 -3 1 (d is m is si ng

an at te m pt ed ap pe al by pl ai nt iff

s w h o , l ik e Vil la ge Mar ke t, un su cces sf ul ly so ug ht

-8

-cert ifi cat io n of a ne w, na rro wer clas s afte r th e di st ric t cou rt firs t refu se d to cert ify a

br oa d c la ss on cert ai n i ss ue s)

.

In reac hi ng th is co nc lu s i o n , w e ex pr es s no vi ew on th e su bs ta nt iv e co nc ern s Vil la ge Mar ke t rai se s—

pa rti cu la rly th e si gn ifi can ce of it s no t ha vi ng be en a pa rty to th e cas e whi le cl as s- cert ifi cat io n was li ti ga te d, th e lo gi c o f m ak in g fil in g (an d

pr es um ab ly lo si ng ) an ap pe al fro m th e or ig in al de ni al of cert ifi cat io n a pr ereq ui si te

to tryin g to cu re th e de fect s of th e ov erb ro ad New Eng la nd c l a s s b y pr op os in g a

na rro wer al te rn at iv e, an d th e pr op rie ty of fo recl os in g an y fu rth er co ns id erat io n of an y New Eng la nd cl as s reg ard le ss of ho w th e c a s e de ve lo ps

. Nor do we op in e on th e

av ai la bi li ty of ot he r fo rm s of pr ejud gm en t rel ie f in li g h t o f Vil la ge Mar ke t’s

co ns is te nt an d e xc lu si ve rel ia nc e o n R ul e 23 (f) as th e ve hi cl e fo r it s ch al le ng e h ere
to th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ru li ng . But we m us t d is m is s t hi s ap pe al

.

B. In terv enti on The di s t r i c t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e ti m el in es s of a m ot io n to in te rv en e is

rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Am . Civ il Lib ert ie s Un io n o f Mi nn . v. Tarek
ib n Ziyad Acad
., 64 3 F.3 d 10 88
, 10 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). In de te rm in in g th e ti m el in es s of a m ot io n to in te rv en e, “ th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld sp eci fic al ly co ns id er: (1 ) th e ex te nt th e li ti ga ti on ha s pr og res se d at th e ti m e of th e m ot io n to in te rv en e; (2 ) th e pr os pe ct iv e in te rv en or ’s kn owl ed ge of th e li ti ga ti on ; (3 ) th e reas on fo r th e de la y in se ek in g in te rv en ti on ; an d (4 ) whe th er th e de la y in s e e k i ng in te rv en ti on m ay pr ejud ic e th e

ex is ti ng pa rti es .” Id . at 1 09 4.

W e fir st co ns i d e r t h e pr og res si on of th e li ti ga ti on

. The m ag is tra te jud ge ob se rv ed th is li ti ga ti on was fa irl y ad va nc ed be cau se “ [t]he pa rti es ha ve br ie fed an d

arg ue d m ot io ns to di sm is s, m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d m o t io ns fo r cl as s
cert ifi cat io n; th ey ha ve en ga ge d in ex te ns iv e di sc ov ery to su pp or t th os e m ot io ns ; an d
th ey ha ve twi ce arg u e d t h i s cas e be fo re th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it .” Cf. W at erLeg acy v. EPA, 30 0 F.R.D. 33 2, 34 3 (D. Mi nn

. 20 14 ) (h ig hl ig ht in g “ th e pa rti es ha ve en ga ge d

-9

-in no di sc ov er y o r m ot io n pr act ic e an d no pr oc eed in gs reg ard in g th e m eri ts of th e

li ti ga ti on ha ve oc cu rred ”). Thi s is no t ne ces sa ril y de te rm in at iv e, as an in te rv en ti on

m ot io n is no t ne ces sa ril y un ti m el y ev en whe re the “ li ti ga ti on is ne arl y wrap pe d up ”

or whe re the m ot io n is “ po st jud gm en t or ev en po st -ap pe al .” Tweed le v. Stat e Farm
Fi re & C as . Co., 5 27 F.3d 66 4, 6 71 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Seco nd , we co ns id er Co le ll a’s kn owl ed ge of th e li ti ga ti o n , w h i ch th e pa rti es di sp ut e. Thi s fact or of

te n weig hs he av il y in cas es whe re th e wou ld -b e in te rv en or was

aware of th e li ti ga ti on fo r a si gn ifi can t pe rio d of ti m e be fo re at te m pt in g to in te rv en e. See, e.g ., U.S. Ban k Nat’l Ass ’n v. St at e Farm Fi re & Cas

. Co
., 76 5 F.3 d 86 7, 86 9- 70 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (n ot in g wou ld -b e in te rv en or kn ew of li ti ga ti on fo r twen ty-on e m on th s be fo re fil in g it s m ot io n) ; Tarek i bn Ziyad Acad
., 64 3 F.3 d at 10 94 (o bs erv in g
po te nt ia l i nt erv en or s k ne w of s ui t fo r fo ur te en m on th s b efo re fi li ng m ot io n)

.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed th at “ Co le ll a’s co un se l ha s pa rti ci pa te d in th is

cas e s i n c e it s in cep ti on , ha vi ng se rv ed as co un se l fo r DeLuc a’s,” bu t co un se l’s
kn owl ed ge be fo re Co le ll a be cam e a cl ie nt is no t rel ev an t. (Em ph as is ad de d)

. And
th e m ag is tra te jud ge pr oc eed ed un de r t h e i m pr es si on th at “ [t]he pa rti es ag ree th at Co le ll a’s ha d kn owl e d g e o f th is li ti ga ti on lo ng be fo re it m ov ed to in te rv en e.”
Co le ll a’s pr es id en t si gn ed an affi da vi t av erri ng sh e “ on ly le arn ed of th e ex is te nc e of
th e cas e in Octo be r, 20 14 .” It ap pe ars th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er th is affi da vi t. Alt ho ug h we are co nc ern ed by th is po in t, a p p e l l a n ts in th ei r op en in g br ie f do no t de ny Co le ll a kn ew ab ou t th e li ti ga ti on , an d th ey on ly ex pl ic it ly ch al le ng e th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fai lu re to ad dr es s th e affi da vi t in th ei r rep ly br i e f

. S e e, e.g ., Neb

. St at e Le g i s l a t i v e Bd
., Uni te d Tran sp

. Uni on v. Sl at er, 24 5 F.3 d 65 6, 65 8 & n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ ‘[C] la im s no t rai se d in an in it ia l br ie f are waiv ed
, an d we ge ne ral ly do no t

co ns id er is su es rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al in a rep ly br ie f.’” (q uo ti ng Mah an ey v. Warren Co un ty, 20 6 F .3d 77 0, 7 71 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) )).

-1 0-The th ird fact or , th e reas on fo r th e d e la y in se ek in g in te rv en ti on , is on ly

ap pl ic ab le to th e ex te nt Co le ll a was in fact aware of th is li ti ga ti on be fo re it at te m pt ed

to in te rv en e, as ap pe ll ees as se r t a n d t h e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d. Eve n so m e of

a p pe ll an ts ’ arg um en ts wit h res pe ct to th is pr on g of th e an al y si s se em to acce pt t h e
pr em is e th at Co le ll a was lo ng aware of th e li ti ga ti on

. Co le ll a m ov ed to in te rv en e on Octo be r 24
, 20 14
, an d ap pe ll an ts as se rt it co ul d no t reas on ab ly ha ve do ne so so on er. The di st ric t co ur t ag reed th e pe nd in g ap pe al pr ev en te d C ol el la fro m pu rs ui ng in te rv en ti on be twee n Feb ru ary 20 13 an d Aug us t 20 14
, bu t de ci de d “ Co le ll a’s fai l[e d]

to pro vi de a co nv in ci ng reas on for no t i nt erv en in g b efo re Fe br ua ry 20 13 .”

App el la nt s ex pl ai n Co le ll a ha d no reas on “ to in te rv en e be fo r e t he [s um m ary jud gm en t or de r] wen t up on ap pe al in Feb ru ary, 20 13

. To th e co nt rary, un ti l th e cas e

was di sm is se d, [Co le ll a’s] rig ht s were fu ll y pr ot ect ed by th e ex is ti ng cl as s acti on in
whi ch New Eng la nd rep res en ta ti ve s so u g h t to rep res en t al l New Eng la nd ret ai l

gr oc ers .” (Ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t ap pe ll an ts do no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n why Co le ll a th ou gh t its in te res ts were p ro te ct ed fro m Ju ly/Aug us t 2 01 2 t o F eb ru ary 20 13

. The 5

New Eng la nd cl as s cert ifi cat io n was de ni ed in Ju ly 20 12
, an d in Aug us t 20 12
, D&G

as ke d fo r pe rm is si on to cert ify a n a r r o w e r c l as s of Mi dwe st pl ai nt iff s. By Aug us t
20 12
, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ th ere was ab so lu te ly no do ub t th at D&G was no t

se rv in g as cl as s pl ai nt iff fo r ret ai le rs in New Eng la nd .” App el la nt s po in t ou t DeLuc a
pa rti ci pa te d in th e su m

m ary jud gm en t pr oc eed in gs , bu t o nc e cl as s ce rti fic at io n ha d
be en de ni ed
, DeLuc a was act in g as an in di vi du al pl ai nt iff

. As ap pe ll ees arg ue ,

“ [o ]nce t h e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed cert ifi cat io n, ‘the pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs ha d no

reas on to as su m e th at th ei r rig ht s were be in g pr ot ect ed

. . . . [T]hey were no ti fie d th at th ey were no lo ng er pa rti es to th e su it an d th ey sh ou ld ha ve real iz ed th at th ey were

Co le ll a was n o t a m em

be r of th e New Eng la nd Arb it rat io n Su bc la ss , whi ch 5

wou ld ha ve pre ve nt ed it fro m m ov in g t o in te rv en e u nt il ou r Feb ru ary 20 13 op in io n rei ns ta te d t he Arbi tra ti on Su bc la ss es

.
-1 1-ob li ga te d to fil e in di vi du al su it s o r i n t e r v en e in th e act io n.’” (Qu ot in g Tay lo r v. 6
Uni te d P arce l Se rv ., Inc ., 55 4 F .3d 51 0, 5 20 (5t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

Fo ur th
, we co ns id er th e po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e to ap pe ll ees if Co le ll a is pe rm it te d

to in te rv en e, a fact or th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d “ di sf av or s in te rv en ti on .” Acco rd in g
to ap pe ll an ts , “ [a]dd in g Co le ll a’s to th e li ti ga ti on wil l en ta il co m pa rat iv el y tri vi al
ti m e an d ex pe ns e” be cau se “ th e Defen da nt s ha v e al l of Co le ll a’s reco rd s of pa st de al in gs , in cl ud in g fu ll tra ns act io na l reco rd s” a n d “Co le ll a’s wil l pr ov id e no ne w th eo rie s to th e cas e.” Cf. Tarek ib n Ziyad Acad
., 64 3 F

. 3 d a t 10 94 -9 5 (ex pl ai ni ng in tro du ct io n of a ne w le ga l th eo ry co ul d su pp or t a fin di ng of p r ejud ic e). Co le ll a
po in ts ou t it “ is bo un d b y th e pr io r ru li ng s an d di sc ov ery, ” in cl ud in g th e fu tu re di sc ov ery sc he du le
, “ so th is Co ur t’s an d th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s ru li ng s on su m m ary jud gm en t an d d is co ve ry

do no t h av e to be rev is it ed .”

Ult im at el y , we are un pe rs ua de d by ap pe ll an ts ’ arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g C o le ll a’s m ot io n to in te rv en e was un ti m el y

. Alt ho ug h we are co nc ern ed by t he di st ric t co ur t no t ex pl ic it ly a d d r e s s i ng Co le ll a’s
affi da vi t co nc ern in g it s kn owl ed ge of th e li ti ga ti on , Co le ll a’s in co m pl et e ex pl an at io n ab ou t it s kn owl ed ge of th e li ti ga ti on an d it s reas on fo r an y de la y le av es us wit h m or e
qu es ti on s th an an swe rs

. W e affi rm th e di st ric t cou rt’s de ni al of Co le ll a’s m ot io n to in te rv en e as no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

App el le es in si st “ it [al so ] bo rd ers on pr ep os te ro us fo r Co le ll a’s co un se l, who 6 al so rep res en te d DeLuc a’s, to a r g u e t h at he was un aware un ti l aft er th e ap pe ll at e de ad li ne ex pi red whe th er hi s own cl ie nt wou ld co nt in ue to pu rs ue cl as s cert ifi cat io n

or ap pe al fro m th e jud gm en t ag ai ns t it .” Als o qu es ti on ab le is ap pe ll an ts ’ in si st en ce th at D&G’s no ti ce of ap pe al fro m th e su m m ary jud gm en t or de r di d no t “ se n[ d] a cl ear si gn a l t h a t [Co le ll a’s] le gi ti m at e in te res ts on ap pe al —t ho se rel at in g to su m m ary jud gm en t— were no t pr ot ect ed .” App el la nt s co nt en d D&G’s co un se l was ap po in te d

as le ad co un se l fo r th e en ti re cas e. The re were th ree co -le ad co un se l, whi ch in cl ud ed D&G’s co un se l an d DeLu ca’s co un se l.

-1 2-II I. CONCLUSI ON

Vil la ge Mar ke t’s ap pe al is di sm is se d. Th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is
affi rm ed

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n t he jud gm en t.

I co nc ur in th e di sm is sa l of Vil la ge Mar ke t’s ap pe al fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on

. Alt ern at iv el y, e v e n t reat in g Vil la ge Mar ke t’s ap pe al as a pe ti ti on fo r writ of

m an da m us , I wou ld de ny rel ie f. Fo r th e reas on s st at ed in th e se pa rat e op in io n in No.
15 -1 78 6, Mil le nn iu m Ope ra ti on s, In c. v. Su pe rVa lu

, In c. , Vil la ge Mar ke t sh ou ld be

co m pe ll ed to arb it rat e it s di sp ut e wit h Su pe rVal u pu rs ua nt to th e arb it rat io n
ag reem en t be twee n th e pa rti es

. The di s t r i c t c o u r t th us di d no t err in de cl in in g to

pe rm it Vil la ge Mark et to see k c ert ifi cat io n o f a cl as s i n fe de ral co ur t.

Alt ho ug h I do ub t th at th e m ot io n of Col el la ’s Su pe rm ark et , In c., to in te rv en e

w a s un ti m el y , on ce Vil la ge Mar ke t is co m pe ll ed to arb it rat e it s di sp ut e wit h
Su pe rVal u, Co le ll a’s is no t en ti tl ed to in te rv en e in th is act io n. W it h Vil la ge Mar ke t di rect ed to arb it rat e, Co le ll a’s ha s no in te res t rel at in g to th e tra ns act io n whi ch is th e

su bjec t of th e rem ai ni ng act io n, an d di sp os i t i o n o f th e rem ai ni ng act io n wou ld no t im pa ir or im pe de Co le ll a’s ab il it y t o p r o t e c t i ts in te res t. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 24 (a).
Co le ll a’s is free to pu rs ue it s cl ai m ag ai ns t Su pe rVal u i n a sep arat e act io n.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t.

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

-1 3-