## Facts

- Taxicab drivers brought an antitrust class action alleging they were excluded from outbound taxicab business at Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport through an exclusive franchise and related municipal regulation.
- The district court certified a plaintiff class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), resulting in a binding, non-opt-out class structure.
- A faction of more than 200 class members sought exclusion from the class, asserting their interests in damages diverged from the existing representatives’ injunctive-focused strategy.
- Four members of that faction moved to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), claiming inadequate representation within the certified class.
- The district court denied intervention and, by maintaining Rule 23(b)(2) certification, effectively prevented exclusion from the class.
- The would-be intervenors appealed the denial of intervention of right.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) is immediately appealable.
2. Whether a certified class member may intervene as of right in a class action under Rule 24(a) when asserting inadequate representation.
3. Whether the district court made sufficient findings to support denial of intervention as of right, particularly regarding adequacy of representation and the Rule 24(a) criteria.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that denial of intervention as of right is an appealable order.
- The court held that class membership does not categorically bar intervention; a class member may seek intervention under Rule 24(a).
- The court reversed the order denying intervention and remanded because the district court’s findings were inadequate to permit meaningful review of the Rule 24(a) analysis.

## Legal Principles

- An order denying intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) is immediately appealable because it conclusively determines the applicant’s ability to participate as a party.
- Class membership does not preclude intervention; a class member may intervene if Rule 24(a)’s requirements are satisfied.
- When class members claim inadequate representation, a court must make sufficient findings addressing the Rule 24(a) factors, including whether the existing representatives adequately protect the applicants’ interests, especially in a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory class.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit exercised jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, recognized that class members may intervene as of right, and required the district court to provide adequate findings on representation and Rule 24(a) before denying intervention in a mandatory Rule 23(b)(2) class action.


Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc., 684 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1982)