Neversink General Store v. Mowi USA, LLC

Background

Neversink General Store and Brenda Tomlinson brought a proposed nationwide consumer class action against Mowi USA, LLC, Mowi Ducktrap, LLC, Mowi USA Holding, LLC, and Mowi ASA. The plaintiffs alleged that Mowi falsely represented that certain smoked Atlantic salmon products were “sustainably sourced,” “all natural,” and sourced from Maine. The parties reached a nationwide class settlement and moved for preliminary approval. In a separate order issued the same day, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement after the proposed settlement was revised to seek certification of a nationwide damages class rather than an injunctive class.

Abigail Starr and Lauren Snider, who were plaintiffs in a later-filed, largely similar class action pending in the District of Maine, moved to intervene. They argued that the existing plaintiffs and their lawyers might not adequately represent their interests, pointing to the allegedly copied allegations, the early settlement, the limited discovery, and the possibility of a settlement that favored Mowi. They also argued that they might be better representatives of some consumers.

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) requires intervention as of right when the application is timely, the applicant has an interest related to the case, the applicant’s ability to protect that interest may be impaired without intervention, and the existing parties may not adequately represent the interest. Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements is enough to deny intervention.

Rule 24(b) permits intervention when the applicant’s claims share a question of law or fact with the main action, but the court must also consider whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to the existing parties. Permissive intervention is left to the court’s discretion.

Intervention as of Right

The court assumed, without deciding against the proposed intervenors, that their motion was timely and that they had a legally protected interest. It nevertheless denied intervention as of right because they did not show that the case might impair their interests or that the existing plaintiffs would inadequately represent them.

The court explained that being an absent member of a proposed class, by itself, ordinarily does not satisfy the impairment requirement. Class members generally can object to a proposed settlement, opt out and pursue their own claims, or continue a separate lawsuit. The court also stated that the interests protected by Rule 24 must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable. Losing the opportunity to serve as lead plaintiffs or for their lawyers to receive financial benefit from their investigation did not qualify as such an interest.

The court separately found that Starr and Snider had not shown inadequate representation. Because the proposed intervenors and the existing plaintiffs sought similar relief based on similar allegations, the proposed intervenors had to rebut the presumption that the existing plaintiffs adequately represented their interests. Their allegations of collusion, copycat pleadings, confidential settlement discussions, and insufficient discovery were largely speculative or conclusory. The court also noted that the proposed intervenors had made their own early settlement demands without substantial discovery, which undercut their criticism of the timing of the existing settlement.

The court further stated that concerns about whether the settlement was adequate could be raised during the settlement-approval process. The proposed intervenors could object to the settlement or opt out. The court noted that the timing and circumstances of the settlement could later be relevant to any attorneys’ fee award, but that point did not justify intervention.

Permissive Intervention

The court also found permissive intervention inappropriate. Although the proposed intervenors’ claims shared questions of law or fact with the existing action, their objections could be addressed through the settlement process. Allowing them to intervene after the parties had negotiated a settlement risked delaying or undoing that settlement and prejudicing the existing parties.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) and denied the motion under Rule 24(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket 61. The decision addressed intervention, not the ultimate merits of the allegations against Mowi or final approval of the settlement.