Intervene, Object, Opt-Out

Edwards v. Heartland Payment Sys., Inc., No. B284000 (D2d8 Nov. 30, 2018)

There are three overlapping wage and hour class actions against the same employer: Case #1, Case #2, and Case #3. Cases ## 1 and 2 were filed on the same day. Case #3 was filed two months later. The complaints get amended a bunch of times. Case #1 settles at a mediation where counsel for all three cases are present. Cases ##2 and 3 don’t settle. At the time of the settlement, Case #1 lacked a few of the claims that were alleged in Cases ##2 and 3. Post settlement, the Case #1 complaint was amended to add in these claims. 

Plaintiffs in Case #3 moved to intervene in Case #1. A few days later, Case #1 Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval. The court denied intervention, finding that any of the Case #3 plaintiffs who didn’t like the settlement could adequately protect their rights by objecting or opting out. Case #3 Plaintiffs took an appeal. While the appeal was pending, Case #3 plaintiffs briefed a number of issues related to the adequacy of the settlement in Case #1. Eventually, the overall settlement fund went up by $115k. Then the Court of Appeal entered a stay.

So the question is whether the trial court erred in finding that a right to object or opt out is a good as a full blown intervention to protect the rights of absent class members. The Court holds it is. Plaintiff’s main point is that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal. 5th 260 (2018) a class member needs to intervene to preserve a right to appeal the approval of a settlement. But Hernandez gave a second option—an objecting class member’s right to appeal can be preserved by filing a motion to vacate the final judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 663, which permits a motion by any “party aggrieved.” With that post-judgment option available, the class members could protect their interests, including their right to appeal, by opting out or objecting.

Affirmed.