Pearson v. Target Corporation

Dist. Ct. erred in denying motion by class member seeking to intervene in class action that had been subject to order that had approved proposed settlement, where intervention was for limited purpose of disgorging side settlements that were given to three other class members who had objected to order approving settlement of class action, and who had dismissed their appeals prior to when Appellate Court briefing on said appeals had commenced. While basis for denial in intervention motion was fact that Dist. Ct. had subsequently entered into final order dismissing case with prejudice that was entered following dismissal of three objectors’ appeals, Dist. Ct. should have allowed intervention motion that had been filed under Rule 60(b)(6) to restore matter back to stage of proceedings where Dist. Ct. had retained limited jurisdiction to oversee administration of settlement agreement, since: (1) there was real risk that three objectors had filed objections and had voluntarily dismissed their appeals at expense of other class members; and (2) Dist. Ct.’s dismissal of action with prejudice after three objectors had dismissed their appeals effectively altered term of class settlement that had required Dist. Ct. to monitor said settlement where Dist. Ct. had not given other class members such as intervenor notice or opportunity to weigh in on issue.