Hershey v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
Filing
312
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 216 Farrar class members' Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 9/5/2012. (mss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JIMMIE HERSHEY,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 07-1300-JTM
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Intervene for Limited Purpose of the
Farrar class representatives. (Dkt. 216). The motion seeks intervention for the ostensible
purpose of protecting a partial summary judgment awarded the representatives in parallel
state litigation. The court has reviewed the arguments of the parties and concludes that the
motion should be denied.
This Farrar class members have been vigilant in their efforts to advance their
perceived interests. This court has denied by separate Orders (Dkt. 182, 307) two other
motions to intervene by the Farrar class representatives. (Dkt. 137, 291). The findings and
conclusions of those Orders are adopted herein.
In addition, before commencing their formal attempts to intervene in the action, the
Farrar class representatives sought to prevent class certification of the plaintiff class
through a variety of non party pleadings. Thus, the Farrar class representatives initially
filed a STATEMENT NOTIFYING THE COURT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CERTIFIED CLASS IN A PRIOR
ACTION WHOSE RIGHTS WILL BE PREJUDICED BY CLASS CERTIFICATION HEREIN, (Dkt. 117).
Hershey moved to strike the pleading as an improper filing by a non-party, and Magistrate
Judge Humphreys granted the motion as unopposed on November 5, 2010. (Dkt. 121). On
November 15, 2010, the Farrar class both objected to the decision to strike under
Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 72 (Dkt. 123), and filed its OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION. (Dkt. 124). This promptly drew another motion to strike by Hershey. (Dkt.
135). In its Order granting the plaintiff’s Motion to Certify (Dkt. 135), this court also
overruled the objection to the Judge Humphreys’s decision to strike the Statement
Notifying, and denied as moot the Hershey class’s second motion to strike.
The pending Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 216) is hereby denied in light of this court’s
prior rulings and its general conclusion that the Farrar class representatives have failed to
show any conflict of interest justifying intervention. In particular, this court has previously
determined that the Hershey class and its counsel adequately represents the interests of
2
class members (Dkt. 182, at 11), and that as an interlocutory order the state court partial
summary judgment award is not entitled to full faith and credit. (Dkt. 307). In addition, the
court notes that the Hershey class has continued to protect the interests of the class by
separately moving for partial summary judgment on the issue of the 1984 Settlement
Agreement (Dkt. 250).
The court finds no basis for finding inadequate representation of the interests of the
Farrar class members, and so finds no grounds for the relief sought. See Kane County, Utah
v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 11207 (10h Cir. 2007) (en banc).
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2012, that the Motion
to Intervene (Dkt. 216) of the Farrar class members is hereby denied.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?