- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In re Flint Water Cases
Judith E. Levy United States District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE [1355]
Before the Court is a motion to intervene filed by a group of individuals who have cases pending in Michigan state court (the "Collins Plaintiffs"). (ECF No. 1355.) They wish to object to the proposed settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved. (ECF No. 1399.) The background and description of the Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") set forth in that opinion is incorporated here.
The Collins Plaintiffs' state-court claims seek reimbursement for water that residential and commercial customers did not use during the Flint Water Crisis and is styled as an unjust enrichment claim. (ECF No. 1355, PageID.42018-42020.) They seek to intervene in this litigation to argue that the settlement should include compensation for their claims. The Collins Plaintiffs argue that, absent a subclass specifically for their claims, their state law cases will be "wiped and nullified without consideration." (Id. at PageID.42017.)
In their opposition to the Collins Plaintiffs, class and individual Plaintiffs argue that intervention is not necessary because the Collins Plaintiffs already have the right to object under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 1391, PageID.53971-53972.) The Court agrees.
They also argue that the Collins Plaintiffs' substantive objections warrant neither intervention nor rejection of preliminary approval. (ECF No. 1391, PageID.53975.) The Court need not comment on the merits of the Collins' Plaintiffs objections, however, because they are premature.
The MSA provides a process (described already in the Opinion and Order ECF No. 1399) by which individuals can either choose to participate in the settlement or continue to pursue their claims. If the Collins Plaintiffs choose to participate in the settlement program the MSA provides a process by which they can raise their objections. Accordingly, the Collins Plaintiffs' motion to intervene is denied.
The MSA is aligned with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5), which provides for objections made by class members. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 21, 2021
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThe undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 21, 2021.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Alert