Opinion ID: 177521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Objectors' Renewed Motion to Intervene

Text: In addition to their challenges to the District Court's class certification decision and approval of the Modified Settlement, the Objectors also contend that the Court abused its discretion when it denied as untimely their November 2007 motion to intervene. In light of our conclusion that the Court erred in evaluating the adequacy requirement, little turns on this question; on remand, the Court should revisit whether the named plaintiffs and class counsel are adequate class representatives, and the Objectors may again seek to intervene in that context. In any event, we conclude that the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Objectors' renewed motion to intervene. In Community Bank I, we stated that [t]he time frame in which a class member may file a motion to intervene challenging the adequacy of class representation must be at least as long as the time in which s/he may opt-out of the class. 418 F.3d at 314. Moreover, a motion to intervene made within that time period is presumptively timely. Id. The Objectors note that they filed their renewed motion to intervene in November 2007, before the opt-out period had ended. Accordingly, they contend that their renewed motion was timely. However, we also stressed in Community Bank I that the [t]imeliness of an intervention request `is determined by the totality of the circumstances.' Id. (quoting United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1181 (3d Cir.1994)). As noted, the Objectors withdrew their 2003 motion to intervene on remand, apparently believing that the MDL transfer of the Hobson action would permit them an opportunity, in effect, to depose existing class counsel and take over these consolidated class actions. The record reveals that this expectation was unfounded; the Court never told the Objectors it would permit them to file an amended consolidated complaint for all of the consolidated actions, and made clear during the November 2005 conference that it intended to address class certification and approval of the Modified Settlement in the consolidated Kessler action before dealing with any matters in the other transferred cases. In any event, once the District Court determined (in October 2006) that the TILA/HOEPA claims were not viable, the Objectors were on notice that their interests would not be adequately pursued by the named plaintiffs and their counsel. The Objectors nonetheless waited almost a year before filing their renewed motion to intervene. See Joseph M. McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions: Law and Practice § 4:36, at 769 (6th ed. 2010) (This `sit back and wait' approach [is impermissible] where the would-be intervenors should reasonably know that their interests will no longer be represented by the named plaintiff, as where the named plaintiffs' litigation decisions indicate that they have abandoned [certain] claims....). In these circumstances, we cannot say that the Court abused its discretion in denying as untimely the Objectors' renewed motion to intervene.