Carolyn D. Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that a proposed intervenor in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action who shares an identical interest with the existing plaintiff—to recover civil penalties on behalf of the state—must make a compelling showing of inadequate representation to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), and that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) when the intervenor would not contribute to factual development. The court further held that a non-party who is properly denied intervention has no right to appeal the approval of a PAGA settlement, dismissing the appeal under the rule that only parties may appeal an adverse judgment.

Holdings

1. Neverson's motion to intervene as of right fails at the fourth prong of the Wilderness Society test because her interest is identical to that of Callahan, and she failed to make a compelling showing that Callahan inadequately represented her interests.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention because the discretionary factors, including the identity of interest and lack of significant contribution to factual development, weighed strongly against intervention.
3. Because Neverson's motion to intervene was properly denied, she never became a party to the action and therefore has no right to appeal the settlement approval.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Neverson was entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2)
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)
3. Whether Neverson, as a non-party, has the right to appeal the approval of the PAGA settlement

Disposition

Affirmed as to the denial of intervention; dismissed as to the appeal of settlement approval.