Brown v. Salcido

── Brown v. Salcido ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHASOM BROWN; MARIA No. 24-5692 NGUYEN; WILLIAM BYATT, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-03664- Plaintiffs - Appellees, YGR v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware OPINION company, Defendant - Appellee, v. ADAM SALCIDO, Movant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 19, 2025 Pasadena, California Filed April 20, 2026 2 BROWN V. SALCIDO Before: Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Lee SUMMARY * Intervention The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, as untimely, of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene in a class action against Google LLC. Plaintiffs alleged that Google improperly collected and misused data of Incognito mode users of the Google Chrome browser. The district court certified an injunctive relief class but denied a damages class. On the eve of a class trial on the injunctive claims, the parties agreed to settle: Google would change some policies, the named plaintiffs would arbitrate their individual damages, and the class certification denial of damages would not be appealed. Three months later, a group of 185 Google Chrome users (the Salcido plaintiffs) moved to intervene to preserve the “appellate rights” of absent class members seeking class damages. The panel held that the timeliness for an intervention motion is generally governed by three factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  BROWN V. SALCIDO 3 length of the delay. The panel held that this test applied to the Salcido plaintiffs’ motion even though they sought to enter the case for the sole purpose of appealing the class certification denial and the time for the named plaintiffs to appeal had not expired. Applying the three-part test, and assessing prejudice from the time that certification of a damages class was denied, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the prejudice factor weighed against intervention because Google and the named plaintiffs would likely have to start from scratch and nix the settlement deal if the Salcido plaintiffs intervened and sought damages. The panel held that the length and lack of reason for the delay cut against the Salcido plaintiffs. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the “stage of the proceedings” factor disfavored intervention. COUNSEL David Boies (argued), Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Armonk, New York; Mark C. Mao, Sean Rodriguez, and Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, California; Alison L. Anderson, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Los Angeles, California; James Lee and Rossana Baeza, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, Florida; John A. Yanchunis and Ryan J. McGee, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, Florida; Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California; Amy Gregory, William C. Carmody, and Steven M. Shepard, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, New York; Jenna G. 4 BROWN V. SALCIDO Farleigh, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, Washington; Jean Sutton Mar