Alaska v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp.

Good Law
123 F.3d 1317
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 3, 1997No. 95-36269California1,722 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

OVERVIEW

A number of petroleum purchasers (“named plaintiffs”) brought suit against a number of petroleum companies (“Suburban”). The district court denied class certification. The named plaintiffs continued the suit in their individual capacities and eventually settled with Suburban. After judgment was entered, Jose Daniel Ramos, a putative class member, attempted to intervene for the purpose of appealing the denial of class certification. The district court denied intervention on the grounds that the motion to intervene was untimely and there was no justiciable issue. Ramos appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We conclude that although the district court erred in denying Ramos’s motion to intervene, the error was harmless and we affirm.

FACTS

On behalf of themselves and a class of 1,300 commercial users of propane in certain areas of Alaska, the named plaintiffs brought an action against Suburban, alleging antitrust violations. The district court reasoned that, because the named plaintiffs were large and sophisticated petroleum purchasers, them bargaining power might give them an opportunity to avoid…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.