Opinion ID: 65811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudice to Existing Parties if Motion To Intervene Is Granted.

Text: The second timeliness factor weighs the prejudice to other parties caused by the delay in seeking intervention. Any potential prejudice caused by the intervention itself is irrelevant, because it would have occurred regardless of whether the intervention was timely. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 265. The only proper concern is how much more prejudice would come from Texas's intervening in January 2008 compared to its intervening in March 2006. The impact on other parties is minimized by the nature of Texas's interest and by actions the district court took to segregate the funds in question. Texas is not asking to reopen the underlying settlement agreement. No new negotiations need to take place. Texas has no quarrel with the amount of the settlement or the distribution of funds among class members. It would have been more convenient for the district court to hear Texas's arguments about the unclaimed funds at the time the cy pres plan was being developed, but the other parties are not disadvantaged by the delay. Inconvenience for the district court is not the same as prejudice to parties. [I]nterfere[nce] with orderly judicial processes ... has nothing to do with timeliness and is not a relevant factor when analyzing intervention as of right. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 266. The actions of the district court prevented prejudice to one party that might otherwise have been disadvantaged by a late intervention. In a companion to this case, Chesapeake Energy Limited Partnership (CELP) is appealing another aspect of the same settlement. Its appeal could not be brought until a final order was issued in the main case. [3] Reopening the case to allow Texas to intervene could have delayed CELP's appeal. The district court mitigated this problem, however, by segregating the funds relevant to CELP's appeal in a separate account. Those funds are therefore not endangered by Texas's intervention. CELP's claims can be addressed independently. Even if CELP's appeal would have been delayed by Texas's late intervention, that delay would have been short. The district court has already considered the claims Texas plans to make, so reconsidering them in light of any new arguments Texas brings in person could not have taken much time.