Two employees filed separate PAGA suits against employer.  Employer settled with the first employee who sued it, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) accepted its share of the settlement proceeds.  The second employee then moved to intervene and object to the settlement.  Held:  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to invtervene.  The motion was untimely as it was filed three weeks after the court had approved the settlement and entered judgment.  Also, for over two years, the would-be intervener had had knowledge of the related litigation and the potential a settlement or judgment in that action would foreclose his, yet had not moved to intervene.  The late intervention would also burden the other parties with added expense.  Moreover, the second employee cannot move to vacate the judgment or appeal from denial of such a motion.  The LWDA was served with the settlement agreement, did not object to it, and cashed the check for its share of the settlement proceeds.  As the principal for which the private attorney generals act as agents under PAGA, the LWDA’s acceptance of the settlement and judgment bound the second employee.  Thereafter, the employer was properly granted summary judgment in the second employee’s action, again based on the LWDA’s acceptance of the benefits of the settlement in the first employee’s action.