Heldt et al v. Payday Financial, LLC et al

Filing 98

ORDER granting 91 Motion to Intervene filed by Thomas Brown, Monica Johnson, Melinda Long, Debera Grant, Renee Holmes, Kevin Hayes, James Hayes, Leslie Jan Lydon, Elizabeth Jackson, Abraham Inetianbor, James Binkowski, Jeffrey Moore, Lisa Walker, Herbert White. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 12/15/15. (SLW)

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION

CHAD MARTIN HELDT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED INDIVIDUALS; CHRISTI W.
JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF
ALL
SIMILARLY
SITUATED
INDIVIDUALS;
SONJA
CURTIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS;
AND CHERYL A. MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED INDIVIDUALS;

PILED
DEC 15 2015

~~

3: 13-CV-03023-RAL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE

Plaintiffs,

vs.
PAYDAY FINANCIAL, LLC,
WESTERN
SKY FINANCIAL, LLC, CASHCALL, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND WS
FUNDING, LLC, A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF CASHCALL, INC.,
Defendants.

Thomas Brown, Monica Johnson, Melinda Long, Debera Grant, Renee Holmes, Kevin
Hayes, James Hayes, Leslie Jan Lydon, Elizabeth Jackson, Abraham Inetianbor, James
Binkowski, Jeffrey Moore, Lisa Walker, and Herbert White (Intervenors) have moved to
intervene in this class action case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, alternatively,
Rule 24(b). Doc. 91. The Intervenors seek to object to preliminary approval of the proposed

1

'
l

J

"

settlement in this case and participate in any future proceedings concerning the settlement. Doc.
91. None of the parties in this case have objected to the motion to intervene.
Motions to intervene should be construed "liberally . . . in favor of the proposed
intervenors." In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings, 716 F.3d 1057, 1066 (8th Cir. 2013)
(quotation omitted).

Under Rule 24(b)(l)(B), a court may permit intervention on a timely

motion when anyone: "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b )(1 )(B). When exercising its discretion under Rule
24(b), a court "must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties' rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
The Intervenors satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(b)(2).

To begin with, the

Intervenors' motion is timely. See In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings, 716 F.3d 1057
(8th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors to consider when determining whether a motion to intervene
is timely). The Intervenors filed their initial motion to intervene only two weeks after the parties
moved to conditionally certify the class and preliminarily approve the settlement in this case.
Doc. 80. See Midland Funding LLC v. Brent, NO. 3:08 CV 1434, 2011 WL 1882507, at *4
(N.D. Ohio May 17, 2011) (finding that motion to intervene was timely when it was filed "mere
weeks" after an order preliminarily approving a class action settlement). Next, the Intervenors'
claims share common questions of law or fact with the main action.

The Intervenors are

plaintiffs in other class actions against the defendants in this case. According to the Intervenors,
these other class actions not only concern the same acts by defendants at issue in this case, but
also raise "substantially similar claims." Finally, allowing the Intervenors to intervene will not
unduly delay or prejudice the parties' rights. In terms of certifying the class and approving the
settlement, this case is in its infancy. The parties' motion to conditionally certify the class and

2

I

preliminary approve the settlement was filed in early November 2015. This Court has yet to
even hold a hearing on the parties' motion, let alone issue an order granting it. Further, many of
the objections the Intervenors raise in their motion are issues that Rule 23 require this Court to
consider when determining whether to conditionally certify the class and preliminarily approve
of the settlement. Allowing the Intervenors to brief these issues and appear at the preliminary
approval hearing will not cause undue delay or prejudice to the parties.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Intervenors' motion to intervene, Doc. 91, is granted and Intervenors
shall be joined as parties in this action for the purpose of to objecting to preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement in this case and participating in any future proceedings concerning the
settlement. It is further
ORDERED that Intervenors may participate in person or by telephone in the December
18, 2015 hearing in this case. It finally
ORDERED that the caption shall be amended to list the Intervenors.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

3