Perkins v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.

Background

Tiffany Nance, the proposed intervenor, moved to intervene in Perkins. Her counsel also represented a plaintiff in a materially identical case filed in the Eastern District of California after Perkins was filed. Nance argued that intervention was necessary to protect her and similarly situated current or former warehouse workers employed by Hadco Metal Trading Santa Fe Springs CA, doing business as Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., in their wage-and-hour claims.

Nance said her counsel wanted to intervene for two purposes: to assess whether a purported settlement involving Perkins and a related case in this district was fair and adequate, and to help prepare the settlement documents. She also pointed to possible collusion between Ryder and the Perkins and related-case plaintiffs. The opinion states that the settlement had not yet been submitted to Judge Orrick for preliminary approval.

Court’s reasoning

The court relied on recent decisions denying intervention in similar circumstances. It explained that intervention generally was not appropriate when a proposed intervenor could protect her interests by opting out of a proposed settlement or objecting to it through the normal settlement-objection process.

The court rejected Nance’s identified evidence of collusion. Nance’s counsel had been denied participation in mediation, and counsel for the related-case plaintiffs later represented a warehouse worker who had participated in the mediation. The court held that these facts were not evidence of collusion. It also held that the existing plaintiffs’ desire to control the case they filed first and to reach a global settlement covering truck drivers and warehouse workers was not, by itself, evidence of collusion.

Nance also argued that the existing plaintiffs were inadequate representatives because the initial plaintiffs were truck drivers. The court noted that the class definitions in Perkins and Nance’s case were materially identical and covered all non-exempt workers. It concluded that differences between truck-driver and warehouse-worker regulations and policies did not make a settlement covering both groups suspicious or unfair. The court said it would examine those differences, the settlement’s compensation structure, and the discovery obtained before mediation if the plaintiffs later sought preliminary or final settlement approval.

Rulings

The court denied the Proposed Intervenor’s motion to intervene. It did not approve the purported settlement in this order. The court separately granted the stipulation to consolidate the related case with Perkins and authorized the plaintiffs’ counsel to file a consolidated class action complaint.

Effect

Nance was not permitted to become a party through intervention. The court stated that she and similarly situated workers could challenge any proposed settlement through the objection or opt-out process. The settlement’s fairness and adequacy remained for later review if the plaintiffs sought approval.