The California Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's decision to deny Angela Tisdale and Terrance Pratt's request to intervene in a class action settlement against Apria Healthcare. This ruling impacts former delivery drivers and licensed vocational nurses who are part of a separate but related legal action against the healthcare provider.

The case, known as Smith v. Apria Healthcare, was filed in the Sutter County Superior Court and involved allegations of wage and hour violations against Apria Healthcare LLC. The plaintiffs, Travis Smith and Uriel Arauz, reached a settlement with Apria for $5.75 million, which included provisions for approximately 350 delivery drivers. Tisdale and Pratt, who are also former delivery drivers, argued that the settlement was collusive and did not adequately protect the interests of other potential class members.

The dispute arose after Tisdale and Pratt filed a separate class action in Los Angeles County, alleging similar wage and hour violations against Apria. Their case was removed to federal court, and they sought to intervene in the Smith action to challenge the settlement. They claimed that the settlement process was a 'reverse auction,' where Apria allegedly chose less effective attorneys to negotiate a weaker settlement to preclude other claims.

The court ruled that Tisdale and Pratt's application to intervene was untimely. The court noted that they had ample notice of the Smith action and its settlement process but waited too long to seek intervention. The court stated, 'The proposed intervener has had adequate notice... This case is further along and has proceeded quicker than the other case.' This ruling effectively denied Tisdale and Pratt the opportunity to challenge the Smith settlement.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that Tisdale and Pratt did not demonstrate any immediate danger or irreparable harm that would warrant ex parte relief. The court emphasized that their application was not timely and that the interests of the proposed class members were being adequately represented by the existing plaintiffs in the Smith action.

The ruling has significant implications for Tisdale and Pratt, as well as other potential class members in similar cases against Apria Healthcare. It reinforces the importance of timely intervention in class action settlements and highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to protect their interests in complex legal disputes.

The decision also raises questions about the fairness of class action settlements and the potential for collusion between defendants and plaintiffs’ attorneys. Tisdale and Pratt's claims of a reverse auction settlement process could prompt further scrutiny of similar cases in the future.

Looking ahead, Tisdale and Pratt may consider appealing the ruling, although the court's decision has already been finalized. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in class action litigation and the need for potential interveners to act swiftly to protect their rights.