Document: 536 U.S. 1 DEVLINv.SCARDELLETTI et al. No. 01-417. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued March 26, 2002. Decided June 10, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT Petitioner retiree participates in a defined benefits pension plan (Plan) that was amended 1991 to add cost living increase (COLA). Because Plan could not support such large increase, its trustees ultimately eliminated COLA 1997 and filed class action Maryland Federal District Court, seeking declaratory judgment amendment binding on all members or void. Petitioner's separate challenge dismissed by New York which found court should resolve matter. By this time, had already conditionally certified under Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). After asked approve their settlement with representatives, petitioner moved intervene. The denied his motion as untimely. It then heard objections settlement, including those advanced petitioner, approved settlement. appealed. Fourth Circuit affirmed Court's denial intervention held that, because named representative he been properly right intervene, lacked standing Held: Nonnamed like who have objected timely manner approval at fairness hearing power bring an appeal without first intervening. Pp. 6-14. (a) This issue, though framed one standing, does implicate jurisdiction courts, satisfies both constitutional prudential requirements. What is issue whether "party" for purposes appealing approval, only lawsuit's parties, become may adverse judgment. has never restricted parties. interest similar nonnamed parties allowed past. He hearing, permitted Rules Procedure. And settlement's notwithstanding amounted final decision claim sufficient trigger appeal. That cannot be effectively accomplished through — once reach over petitioner's objections, interests diverge from representative. Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U. S. 301, white police officers were minority brought racial discrimination suit contrary. Although affected them, did dispose any they might members. Nor considering purpose bringing conflict other aspect procedure. Such some others. important here are sense being bound Allowing them when preserves own will bind despite expressed before trial court. appeals undermine goal preventing multiple suits. Restricting limits potential appellants considerably. 6-11. (b) rejects Government's argument required intervene agree Government structure procedural rules requires A procedure allows object intervening similarly allow district court's disregard objections. Moreover, no statute rule directly addresses question settlements, while finally disposes one's rights statutory basis. 28 C. § 1291. 11-14. 265 F. 3d 195, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, KENNEDY THOMAS, joined, post, p. 15. Thomas Goldstein argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Erik Jaffe Brian Wolfman. Laurence Gold respondents. brief Andrew D. Roth, David L. Shapiro, William Hanrahan, Kenneth M. Johnson. Patricia A. Millett States amici curiae urging affirmance. On Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Kneedler, Gregory G. Garre, Marleigh Dover, Irene Solet, Becker, Jacob H. Stillman, Eric Summergrad.* JUSTICE O'CONNOR Court. Petitioner, member 23(b)(1), sought stated hearing. Appeals successfully litigation. We now reverse. 2 * Robert Devlin, retired worker represented Transportation Communications International Union (Union), administered Union. In 1991, recommendation Plan's trustees, adjustment (COLA) active employees. As it turned out, however, able increase. To address problem, new freeze COLA. concerned about incurring Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA) liability eliminating workers, see 29 1054(g)(1) (1994 ed.) (providing accrued "may decreased plan"), froze still funds, obtained equitable decree 1995 declaring former breached fiduciary duties ending workers would violate ERISA. Scardelletti Bobo, 897 Supp. 913 (Md. 1995); JFM-95-52 (D. Md., Sept. 8, 1997). Accordingly, amendment, 3 October 1997, present Maryland, or, alternatively, Originally, proposed subclass previous involvement issue. refused representative, preferring Southern York, arguing, among things, violated Age Discrimination Employment 1967, 81 Stat. 602, amended, 621 seq. ed. V). involving later Second because: 4 "The exact pursuing... addressed Maryland.... seems eminently sensible fully issue." Devlin Int'l Union, 175 121, 132 (CA2 1999). 5 At time dismissed, dividing into two subclasses: employees retirees. April 20, 1999, attorney sent letter informally action. May 12, another repeating request. not, formally move time. 6 Also May, representatives agreed whereby exchange addition benefits. August 27, preliminary September pursuant 24. November "absolutely untimely." Debarr, 201 (CA4 2001). and, concluding fair, it. App. C Pet. Cert. 1-3. 7 Shortly thereafter, noted appeal, challenging dismissal well abuse discretion standard. 3d, 203-204. further Id., 208-210. 8 review Circuit's holding ability granted certiorari, 534 1064 (2001), disagreement Circuits fail Compare Cook Powell Buick, Inc., 155 758, 761 (CA5 1998) (holding intervened approval); Gottlieb Wiles, 11 1004, 1008-1009 (CA10 1993) (same); Guthrie Evans, 815 2d 626, 628-629 (CA11 1987) Shults Champion Corp., 35 1056, 1061 (CA6 1994) (same), re PaineWebber Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litigation, 94 49, 53 1996) (any appeal); Carlough Amchem Prods., 707, 710 (CA3 Marshall Holiday Magic, 550 1173, 1176 (CA9 1977) (same). II 9 204, we begin clarifying courts Article III Constitution. class, creates "case controversy" satisfy requirements injury, causation, redressability. Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555 (1992); also Navigant Consulting, Securities 275 616, 620 (CA7 10 do raise sorts concerns ordinarily matter standing. Prudential include: "[T]he general prohibition litigant's raising person's legal rights, barring adjudication generalized grievances more appropriately branches, requirement plaintiff's complaint fall within zone protected law invoked." Allen Wright, 468 737, 751 (1984). 12 judgment, there these three seeks own, belongs discrete interested clearly falls fair Fed. Civ. Proc. 23(e). 13 instead, considered "only lawsuit, judgment." 304 (1988) (per curiam). Respondents argue party taking 14 never, Blossom Milwaukee & Chicago R. Co., Wall. 655 (1864), instance, bidder property foreclosure sale, action, refusal request made during compel sale. Hinckley Gilman, C., 467 (1877), receiver, officer rather than case, order "relat[ing] accounts," reasoning "[f]or occupies position suit." 469. More recently, "[t]he nonparty contempt questioned," Catholic Conference Abortion Rights Mobilization, 487 72, 76 (1988), given nature upon nonparty. 15 SCALIA attempts distinguish cases characterizing collateral orders "were parties." Post, 16 (dissenting opinion). But difficult how uses term "`named action,'" usually "`in caption summons complaint.'" (quoting Restatement (Second) Judgments 34(1), 345 (1980); id., Comment a, Reporter's Note, 347). similar. consistently See 23(e) ("A shall compromised court, notice compromise directs"); Newberg Conte, Class Actions 11.55, 11-132 (3d 1992) (explaining entitles opportunity object). binds "final [petitioner's] claim" Williams Morgan, 111 684, 699 (1884) (describing discussed above). prior cases, affects Cf. supra, 6. definition 17 group against Police Department. class. 18 related Seventh complete diversity suits 1332. 619; Snyder Harris, 394 332, 340 (1969). According Circuit, "[c]lass ways, non-parties (so can come federal court) but having party's litigate independently." 619. members, label indicate absolute characteristic, conclusion applicability various differ based context. 19 are, filing behalf tolls limitations them. American Pipe Constr. Co. Utah, 414 538 (1974). Otherwise, forced preserve claims, major goals litigation simplify number claims defeated. defeat likewise justified Ease administration actions consider citizenship many whom even unknown, determining jurisdiction. 7A Miller, Kane, Practice 1755, pp. 63-64 (2d 1986). Perhaps importantly, destroy almost actions. therefore, respect. 20 most case proceedings feature hold otherwise deprive Particularly light fact opt out means protecting himself disposition finds unacceptable reviewing find legally inadequate. 21 rightly notes decision, particular, privity party. 18. True enough. clear, themselves often Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review (1995). 22 nonetheless, litigation, namely, 629 (arguing allowing members' "fundamental action": "to render manageable involves numerous homogenous access individual lawsuits"). appeals, problematic respondents claim. For thing, limited longstanding practice demonstrates, burden subset onerous. 23 Government, amicus curiae, admits urges us nonetheless require Brief Amici Curiae 12-27. objecting wish asserts generally available those, whose disregarded. 24(a)(2) provides right: 24 "Upon application ... applicant relating transaction subject so situated practical impair impede applicant's protect interest, unless adequately existing 25 state easily meet criteria. establish requisite argues, "within period plaintiffs taken appeal" filed" intervention. Airlines, McDonald, 432 385, 396 (1977). Finally, asserts, member's objection, failure "invariably" show represent 20. 26 Given ease value suggested requirement. identifies instances where initial use: objector actually entitled relief objection successful, untimely, need consolidate duplicative 23-25. situations, disallow unnecessary appeals. 27 us, benefit. stands gain nothing unlikely situations arise frequency. argues if objectors undeterred original appellate level. 21-22. misunderstands point. expect place. few irrational persons pursue round meaningless will, agree, probably enough second. case. second successful level far expected lose sensibility faced prospect frequency, inquiry third situation dealing untimely implicates basic waiver addressable avoid fourth consolidating 3(b)(2). If resolution issues turn complex little gained requiring issues, type (standing below, consolidation appeals) typically determinations likely lead additional layer complexity heard. regardless desirability effective management, method contemplated participate proceedings. disagree. Just intervening, 8-9, IV 30 therefore reverse remand consistent opinion. 31 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Council Institutional Investors Mark Hansen Neil Gorsuch; Charles Yeomans Katherine K. Yunker. Seth P. Waxman, Edward DuMont, Christopher Lipsett Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., Thaddeus Holt Grimes curiae. THOMAS join, dissenting. settled." curiam); 3(c)(1) ("The must specify appeal"). well-settled thankfully, leaves intact. Other chapters hornbooks lucky. holds litigated approving contrary well-established law. "parties" plaintiff defendant giving rise "[o]ne [though] become[s] intervention, substitution, third-party practice,"Karcher 77 (1987). puts it, "[a] person subjected action," (1980) (hereinafter Restatement); designation pleadings counterclaim, defendant, intervention," 34, 347. here, representatives; thus, enter practice, confirmed confer take conducting discovery moving summary e. g., 30(a)(1), 31(a)(1), 33(a), 34(a), 36(a), 45(a)(3), 56(a), 56(b), 56(e). undisputed rights. offered declined; nor Ante, 4, 5. deny least matter, "parties." Rather, contends others,"ante, "purposes appealing," ante, 7.1 bases contentions our precedents, says stand proposition "[w]e litigation." Ibid. These precedents sort. All perfectly involved judgments orders. (and hence from) underlying judgments. distinction between quite explicit (1864). appellant decree, "certainly true [could not] appeal," yet (obviously, movant) asking denying motion. Our decisions 72 same effect. former, said "cannot attempt obviously directing name transfer funds S., latter, witnesses 75, comply subpoena parties), 76. demonstrate why, dispute did) intervene; movant, latter. Marino, ("[S]uch motions course, appealable").2 B grounds equally weak. First, because, ("What settlement"). news students everywhere. There 41(1), 393 (listing examples); 210 `privity' party"). prominent example precisely here. parties: "A [t]he situated, designated member." 41(1)(e), 393. Accord, ("Persons representation virtue relationship contrasted ..."). words Restatement, "is party" [the] party." "well-settled" settlement.3 Second, held, make 304. pernicious today's result, reasoning. I mentioned recent dissent "penchant eschewing clear litigation," US Airways, Barnett, 535 391, 412 (2002). Today's eschews rule; destroys previously existed. abandons bright-line favor vague "based context." `party' context"). say goes selecting result-determinative "context" oh-so-sophisticated inquiry, gather repeated invocation phrase relevant context "goals 11. means, suppose, labor depend laws, First Amendment Amendment. Or perhaps not. makes exponential indeterminacy especially unfortunate utterly unnecessary. Despite assertion breath treating means" "deprive[d] interests," next concedes very easy just that: becoming (noting "the 24, after entered.4 11-12. "value" 12. my view, avoiding reduction hitherto regarding beyond appealing, reason Government: enable perform screening function." 23. example, verify outside resolved presented manner. 23-24. functions pass matters easily, event unable obtain seek "with frequency," "stands appeal." 13. last point: place, (as are), see, Shaw Toshiba Information Systems, 91 942, 973-974, nn. 17-18 (ED Tex. 2000). belief meritless deterred second, surely suggests triumph hope experience.5 suggestion questions easily: Since principle judicial what left level? Quite opposite true. judges, decrees splendid isolation, multiplied ad infinitum. Courts staffed too judges destroying maintain, en banc rehearings, predictable circuit. event, intimately familiar facts, better initially procedurally deficient, late filed, simply inapposite denies interventions grounds, denials appealed, spared trouble altogether. benefit fact-bound questions. (Typically, occasion course treat individually substance, let alone form. E. 973-974.) worth observing assertions merits apply equal force Marino. Yet concluded (no doubt reasons above) practice" reasons, affirm Appeals. purportedly "party": have, says, tolled certification deniedAnte, (citing (1974)). Not willing advance novel erroneous class-action certified. 24-26. lonesome is, words, entirely irrelevant status. "difficult" understand traditional "summons complaint."Ante, (internal quotation marks omitted). so. whole point order, litigation), filings proceedings). "often courts" mere judgmentAnte, (1995)). think significant datum courts," Indeed, "other opinions cited authority relies consist exception decided 301 curiam), lawsuit While difference procedures seemingly escapes attention, recognized acknowledged) paragraph Jurisprudence annotation relies: "Caution: Applicable bar her Thus, has, Procedure, rejected permitting stating 265, 40 supra). Even correct, cast ordinary wasnot generally, 6, invitations until preliminarily approved. assures "few" based, "irrational."Ante, substance corresponding appeal) file Shaw, n. "`canned' professional extract fee lodging generic, unhelpful protests"). cites sunny surmise few.

Category: 8