Swinton v. Starke, No. 18-3186 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After movant filed a putative class action against SquareTrade, plaintiff filed a similar suit. Movant moved to intervene in plaintiff's suit, plaintiff and SquareTrade then reached a proposed class settlement, and the district court in plaintiff's case denied the motion to intervene.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although movant is situated so that disposing of plaintiff's action may impair his interests, movant is adequately represented by plaintiff, who seeks the same relief for the same claims as movant. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff settlement constituted a reverse auction. Therefore, the motion to intervene was properly denied. Finally, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for stay under the first-to-file rule based on lack of pendent jurisdiction.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Intervention. The district court's denial of a motion to intervene is affirmed. Starke filed a putative class action against SquareTrade, Inc., in New York; David Swinton filed a similar action in Iowa, and the Swinton parties reached a class-wide settlement. Before approval, Starke moved to intervene in the Iowa case and for a stay under the first-to-file rule. The district court denied the motion to intervene and for the stay; Starke appeals. The district court erred in concluding that Starke's interest would not be impaired by disposition of the Swinton action because Starke could opt out of the Swinton settlement, but because Starke did not show he would be inadequately represented in the Swinton action and there was insufficient evidence that the Swinton settlement constituted a reverse auction the motion to intervene was properly denied. Because Starke is not a party to the Iowa case on appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for stay and does not have pendent jurisdiction because the resolution of the motion to intervene does not necessarily resolve the motion to stay.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.