Opinion
MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)
10-24-2016
IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To: ALL ACTIONS (except the securities action)
ORDER DENYING JOLIAN KANGAS' MOTION TO INTERVENE
Jolian Kangas filed a Motion to Intervene to appeal the Court's Order denying his motion to intervene to conduct discovery. (Dkt. No. 1896; see Dkt. No. 1746.) Kangas does not need to intervene to appeal. His reliance on United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977), for the proposition that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 requires him to file a motion to intervene to appeal the denial of intervention (Dkt. No. 1896 at 2) is misplaced. United Airlines concerned a post-final judgment motion to intervene to appeal both a denial of intervention and a denial of class certification. 432 U.S. at 390. The Court held that such a motion is timely when the putative intervenor files the motion within the time period the named plaintiffs could have taken an appeal. (Id. at 396-97.) But there has been no final judgment and no denial of class certification here. The Court therefore DENIES his Motion. Intervention is not necessary under the circumstances to appeal the denial of the motion to intervene. See Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2016) (considering appeal of district court's denial of appellant's motion to intervene in class action lawsuit); Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 377 (1987) ("[W]hen an order prevents a putative intervenor from becoming a party in any respect, the order is subject to immediate review.").
This Order disposes of Docket No. 1896.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 24, 2016
/s/_________
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge