IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-03208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action: Judge Furman denied Eric S. Brittain and others’ request to intervene because Rule 23 protections covered their interests.
The ruling affected Eric S. Brittain and the other proposed intervenors, as well as the putative members of the subclass they sought to represent. It determined that they could not intervene because Rule 23’s opt-out and objection procedures adequately protected their interests.
What happened
In In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action, Eric S. Brittain and other proposed intervenors asked to join the case. They claimed to represent a group of people who might be affected by the action.
The court did not decide whether their request was filed on time. Instead, it found that they could not show their interests might be harmed by the case’s outcome because class-action procedures allow people to opt out or object.
Judge Furman denied the motion to intervene. The opinion says those Rule 23 procedures adequately protect the interests of the proposed intervenors and the people in the subclass they sought to represent.
The detailed version
- IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION · No. 1:20-cv-03208
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 15, 2022
Motion and Issue
Eric S. Brittain and other “Proposed Intervenors” moved to intervene under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervention is a procedure that allows a person or entity who is not already a party to join a lawsuit. The court considered whether the proposed intervenors had an interest that might be impaired by the outcome of the action.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that it did not need to decide whether the motion was timely because the proposed intervenors could not satisfy the impairment requirement. The court agreed with the parties’ explanation that the interests of the proposed intervenors and the putative members of the subclass they purported to represent were adequately protected by Rule 23’s procedural safeguards. Those safeguards include the ability to opt out of a class action or object to its resolution.
The court relied on decisions holding that a person’s status as an absent class member, standing alone, does not establish that the person’s interests may be impaired for purposes of intervention under Rule 24.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to intervene, ECF No. 96. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not rule on the motion’s timeliness and instead denied it because the proposed intervenors could not show that their interests might be impaired by the disposition of the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.