United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. United States Department of…

Background

On March 31, 2021, the court granted summary judgment to the union plaintiffs and vacated part of the United States Department of Agriculture’s final rule concerning modernization of swine slaughter inspection. The vacated provision had allowed certain pork plants to eliminate line-speed limits. The court stayed entry of judgment for 90 days so the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and regulated parties could adapt.

After that ruling, Seaboard Foods, LLC moved to intervene and sought an additional ten and a half months before entry of judgment. Seaboard said it operated a pork plant using the inspection system covered by the rule and needed time to adapt to the prior line-speed limits. Clemens Food Group, LLC, Quality Pork Processors, Inc., and WholeStone Farms Cooperative, Inc. also moved to intervene. They sought clarification that the court’s ruling restored line-speed waivers previously issued under a pilot program, or alternatively wanted to request a stay, appeal, or both.

Timeliness of Intervention

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 permits a nonparty to intervene—join an existing lawsuit—only through a timely motion. The court applied four factors used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: the progress of the litigation, the proposed intervenor’s knowledge of the case, the reason for the delay, and possible prejudice to the existing parties.

The court concluded that the first factor weighed against intervention because it had already issued a final order resolving the case and had completed its consideration of the merits, even though entry of judgment was stayed temporarily.

The knowledge factor also weighed against intervention. The proposed intervenors had known about the litigation, and Seaboard and two of the three pilot participants had participated indirectly through affidavits supporting an amicus brief. They did not seek to intervene or present the concerns raised in their motions until after the court ruled on summary judgment.

The court rejected the proposed intervenors’ explanations for their delay. Seaboard cited changed circumstances, differing interests from the Department of Agriculture, and uncertainty about the government’s position. The pilot participants argued that the court’s vacatur created new remedial questions affecting their distinct interests. The court found that the plaintiffs had sought complete vacatur from the start, that the proposed intervenors knew vacatur was possible, and that they had chosen to protect their interests through third parties rather than joining the case earlier.

The court also found that the proposed intervenors could have asked for a longer stay or raised their other concerns before the summary judgment ruling. They could not use intervention to supplement the record and relitigate the remedy after the case had been fully resolved. The court further found no actual change in the government’s position and concluded that the possibility of a future change did not justify the delay.

Although prejudice to existing parties was not necessary to deny intervention because the other timeliness factors clearly weighed against it, the court found a risk of prejudice. Allowing intervention for the proposed purposes could interfere with the Department of Agriculture’s ability to manage a national food-safety system. The court had stayed its earlier ruling in part to allow the Food Safety and Inspection Service to decide how to proceed.

Disposition

The court denied Seaboard Foods, LLC’s motion to intervene. It also denied the motion to intervene filed by Quality Pork Processors, Inc., WholeStone Farms Cooperative, Inc., and Clemens Food Group, LLC. Because Seaboard was not yet a party or an approved intervenor when it filed a separate motion to stay, the court directed the clerk to terminate that motion. Judge Joan N. Ericksen signed the order on May 20, 2021.