Three class actions were filed against a single employer virtually simultaneously alleging similar wage violations and PAGA claims.  After a joint mediation with all three plaintiffs’ attorneys present, the employer settled with one of the three, whom a second later joined.  The other plaintiff moved to intervene and appealed from the denial of that motion.  Held, the objecting plaintiff was not entitled to mandatory intervention under CCP 387(b) because it could protect its interests by either opting out of the settlement class or by objecting to the settlement.  The intervention was not necessary to allow it standing to appeal from any later approval of the settlement since it could acquire standing to appeal by filing a motion to vacate the judgment approving the settlement.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention under CCP 387(a) for the same reasons it denied mandatory intervention.  Appellant’s argument that they needed to intervene to conduct discovery regarding the settlement was not persuasive since an objector to a class action settlement may conduct such discovery without intervening.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 (Bigelow, P.J.); November 30, 2018; 29 Cal. App. 5th 725