Opinion ID: 770253
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudice to Applicants

Text: 27 Because appellants remain free to file a separate action, they have not established that they will be prejudiced if their motion to intervene is denied. Judge Korman emphasized this point at the hearing, going so far as to encourage them to file the sample complaint that accompanied their motion to intervene. 11 In response, they argue that they would face tremendous obstacles in bringing their own lawsuit, among them: that litigating this issue could take years, during which many elderly plaintiffs might pass away; that the goals of judicial economy and uniformity of decisions militate against duplicating the efforts of existing plaintiffs and proceeding separately; and that defendants presented numerous substantial defenses prior to settling and would not face the same public pressure to abandon those defenses and settle as they faced in the instant lawsuit. 28 These potential obstacles to the pursuit of an independent lawsuit do not impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect [its] interest, FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2), to an extent warranting intervention as of right. See, e.g., SEC v. Everest Management Corp., 475 F.2d 1236, 1239 (2d Cir. 1972). In Everest Management, we rejected the argument that the proposed intervenors would be prejudiced by a denial of their motion because they [would] be required to bear the financial burden of duplicating the SEC's efforts; and, not having the SEC's investigative staff and resources available to them, they [might] be unable to develop as complete and reliable a record. Id. Similarly, the fact that appellants in this case will face many significant obstacles if they file their own lawsuit does not as a matter of law require their intervention. 29 We conclude, in sum, that Judge Korman's determination that proposed intervenors would not be unduly prejudiced by a denial of their motion to intervene did not constitute an abuse of discretion. 30