Opinion ID: 3048284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Smiths’ Motion to Intervene

Text: The Smiths challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene as untimely. The timeliness of interven4282 SANFORD v. MEMBERWORKS, INC. tion is measured by “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the length of the delay.” United States v. Carpenter, 298 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Here, the district court found that the Smiths waited nearly two years after the class claims were dismissed, and that intervention now, after Sanford’s individual claims had been arbitrated, would be prejudicial to MemberWorks. [12] Without ruling on the propriety of this decision, we note that the district court’s concerns are no longer present in light of our vacatur of the order compelling arbitration and dismissing the class allegations as moot. We therefore vacate the denial of the Smiths’ motion to intervene and permit the district court to re-evaluate this motion anew in light of our holding today.