Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

This consolidated class action concerns claims that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. violated California wage-and-hour laws affecting its California-based home mortgage consultants. The consolidated cases proceeded under the Kang case number, No. 17-cv-06220-BLF, and included the related Barreras action, No. 21-cv-00071-BLF. The court had preliminarily approved a global class-action settlement, with final approval and an attorneys’ fee request scheduled for a later hearing.

Kirk E. Fyson, a class member, had objected to the proposed settlement and to the request for attorneys’ fees. He also moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), alternatively cited permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), and referred to Rule 23(d)(1), which allows a court in a class action to give class members an opportunity to intervene or present claims or defenses.

Fyson’s Arguments

Fyson argued that the earlier related proceeding had been transferred and consolidated contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. He also argued that the court lacked authority to approve the global settlement and that intervention was needed to protect his interests, including his position concerning a purported side agreement called the Hallman settlement. He asserted that additional discovery was necessary.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Fyson had a significant protectable interest and that the proposed settlement could affect that interest. But the court found his motion untimely. Fyson had received notice in April 2019 that he was a class member in Kang, received notice of the settlement in early May 2021, and did not move to intervene until July 2, 2021. The court rejected his explanation that he did not realize intervention was necessary until reviewing the plaintiffs’ response to his objections.

The court also found that Fyson had not adequately shown why his interests could not be represented without intervention. His concerns about the Ninth Circuit’s mandate and the proposed settlement were already presented in his objection and related briefing, and the court said those issues would be addressed when it considered final approval and attorneys’ fees. The court likewise found that Fyson had not specifically identified the discovery he sought or explained why it was needed. Although his motion was not accompanied by a pleading stating the claim or defense for which intervention was sought, as Rule 24(c) requires, the court did not deny the motion on that basis.

Disposition

The court denied Fyson’s motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). To the extent Rule 23(d)(1) gave the court discretion to allow intervention, the court declined to exercise that discretion and denied intervention under that provision as well. The final order states that Fyson’s motion to intervene was DENIED.

The court emphasized that this ruling did not decide the merits of Fyson’s objections. It stated that those concerns would be considered when it ruled on the plaintiffs’ motions for final settlement approval and attorneys’ fees.