Smith v. Apria Healthcare: Too Late to Intervene in a Wage Class Settlement Called a “Reverse Auction”

When a competing class action is settling the same wage claims for far less, how long can you wait to intervene? In Smith v. Apria Healthcare, No. C104113 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2026), the Third District held that two delivery drivers who called such a settlement a collusive “reverse auction” asked to intervene too late: the timeliness clock ran from when they knew or should have known their interests were at risk, not from when they finally saw the settlement terms. The court affirmed without deciding whether the settlement was fair.

Three lawsuits against one employer

Apria Healthcare uses staffing-agency drivers to deliver some home medical equipment. Driver Alvaro Quintero’s 2020 Los Angeles misclassification case was hard fought: a certified class, a lost arbitration appeal for Apria, a ruling against its “employer” defense and a November 2024 trial date. A September 2024 mediation, six weeks before trial, led to a $16.5 million settlement for 230 class members, about $71,739 each before fees and costs.

Travis Smith, a former licensed vocational nurse, sued separately in Sutter County in 2022, and by 2023 his case was effectively on hold. In mid-2024 Smith and Apria accepted a mediator’s proposal. In July 2024, drivers Angela Tisdale and Terrance Pratt, represented by Quintero’s lawyers, filed their own class action for later-hired drivers; Apria removed it to federal court, which struck their class certification motion, without prejudice, as untimely.

In September 2024, a stipulated order let Smith amend to add two delivery drivers and a putative driver class. The settlement provided up to $5,750,000, with $977,500 for an estimated 350 drivers. The Sutter County court conditionally certified a class that excluded Quintero’s certified class, preliminarily approved the settlement on April 21, 2025, and notice went out May 6.

The reverse-auction argument

A reverse auction, in the federal definition the court quoted, occurs when a defendant facing several class actions “picks the most ineffectual class lawyers” to negotiate with, hoping for approval of “a weak settlement that will preclude other claims against the defendant.” Tisdale and Pratt filed an ex parte application to intervene on May 8, 2025. Their lawyer’s declaration said Apria gave Smith’s lawyers a driver’s name and number, stipulated to a complaint borrowing their allegations and refused to share the settlement memorandum, and that each certified Quintero class member’s settlement value was “nearly 50 times” that of each Smith driver.

At the hearing, the trial court said “[t]he proposed intervener has had adequate notice” and found no basis beyond “hope and conjecture” that the Smith plaintiffs would benefit from delay or the drivers from joining the case. Its June 6, 2025 order denied intervention without an express timeliness finding. The settlement received final approval and became a judgment on August 25, 2025.

Why the appeal was not moot

Apria moved to dismiss, offering a claims administrator’s declaration that Tisdale and Pratt had opted out and checks were mailed September 29, 2025. The court considered that evidence only on mootness and denied dismissal: Code of Civil Procedure section 387 allows intervention “upon timely application,” even after judgment, and a non-objecting class member, Ahsaki Hudson, had a pending appeal that could revive the case. The opt-outs and distribution would make intervention “more complicated,” but the court would not call effective relief impossible.

When the intervention clock started

Both mandatory and permissive intervention require a timely application. Tisdale and Pratt noted the trial court made no timeliness findings but did not develop an argument for de novo review, so the Court of Appeal presumed an implied finding of untimeliness and reviewed it for abuse of discretion, while recognizing that courts “should be reluctant” to reject mandatory intervention as untimely.

Timeliness runs from when proposed interveners knew or should have known their interests were not adequately represented. Tisdale and Pratt pointed to April 30, 2025, when a draft status report revealed preliminary approval. The record said otherwise: their lawyer wrote in August and September 2024 about a possible “reverse auction,” and on October 15, 2024, they told the Los Angeles court they had “grave concerns” that Apria was trying to “rush through a settlement in the Smith [action]”. The court held they knew or should have known their interests were imperiled by that date.

Stage, prejudice and the reason for delay

All three timeliness factors weighed against them. On stage, the settlement had been preliminarily approved and notice sent; the court said they waited until it was “rounding third and heading for home”. On prejudice, the most important factor, the relevant harm comes from the delay, not from intervention itself: acting in October 2024 might have spared the parties nearly seven months of pleading, settlement, approval and notice work, and late intervention would have scuttled the deal with no assurance of a better result.

On the reason for delay, not knowing the terms until May 2025 was no excuse. Quoting a First Circuit decision, the court said “knowledge of a measurable risk to one’s rights is enough,” and it held that the parties’ refusal to disclose terms “should have prompted them to action, not lulled them into complacency.”

“Even assuming the Smith settlement was inadequate,” the court concluded, the application was untimely, which defeated both forms of intervention and made it unnecessary to reach the other arguments. It affirmed, with appeal costs to respondents.

What it means for competing wage cases

The opinion decides timing, not collusion. It leaves the fairness of the Smith settlement untested on appeal.

In our reading, competing counsel and lead plaintiffs should move once the risk is concrete. Their own letters and filings can prove when the clock started, and a refusal to share a confidential settlement memorandum is a reason to act, not wait. The court said intervening in October 2024 would have let them take part in the settlement process and possibly affect the outcome.

A worker who simply received a class notice has different choices; our guide to what to do with a California wage class settlement notice explains them.