Benjamin v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012). In this class action brought by persons with mental retardation who reside in intermediate care facilities operated by defendants, the issue was whether other intermediate care facility residents could intervene, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, and object to a proposed settlement and certification of a settlement class. Plaintiffs sought the provision of community services to them under certain federal statutes, while the proposed intervenors opposed community placement. The district court denied intervention, certified a settlement class, and approved the proposed settlement. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, permitted the intervention, and remanded for reconsideration of the settlement and the settlement class. Judge Cowen wrote the panel’s opinion. He stated that the abuse of discretion standard of review applied, but that that test applies more stringently to denials of intervention as of right.
The facts and procedural history are lengthy and detailed. The panel applied a four-part test for intervention as of right. The relevant factors are: (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a sufficient interest in the case; (3) the applicant’s interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter, by the disposition of the action; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties to the case. In a painstaking analysis, Judge Cowen determined that the proposed intervenors met all four parts of this test.
The case had one additional twist that involved the law of the case doctrine. The proposed intervenors had tried to intervene previously, during the liability phase of the case, and had sought to argue that the class definition was improper. Intervention was denied at that time, and the Third Circuit affirmed that ruling. Judge Cowen noted that the proponents of the settlement were invoking the law of the case doctrine, based on that prior Third Circuit ruling, to bar a challenge to the settlement class definition at the remedy stage. He noted, however, that the prior ruling did nothing more than affirm that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying intervention. The Third Circuit “did not actually rule on the specific question of whether the class itself should or should not be decertified.” Thus, the proposed intervenors challenge to the settlement class was not foreclosed.
There are not many appellate decisions about intervention. Judge Cowen’s opinion is a useful resource on this issue.