Women for America First v. De Blasio
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-05746
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Women for America First v. De Blasio, Judge Schofield denied Komatsu’s requests to join the case or submit a friend-of-the-court brief.
Towaki Komatsu’s requests to join the case or submit a friend-of-the-court brief were denied. The order does not resolve Women for America First’s underlying claim against De Blasio and the other defendants.
What happened
Women for America First sued De Blasio and others under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that the defendants allowed a “Black Lives Matter” street mural but did not promptly respond to its request to paint its own message. This order concerns only another person’s request to participate in the case.
Towaki Komatsu, who was not a party and was representing himself, asked to join the case either as a matter of right or with the court’s permission. Alternatively, he asked to submit a friend-of-the-court brief. The court found that his asserted concerns and proposed messages were not connected to Women for America First’s claim about painting its motto on a New York City street.
Judge Schofield denied all three requests. She denied intervention as of right and permissive intervention because Komatsu lacked a sufficient interest in the dispute, and denied permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief because the parties had capable lawyers and Komatsu did not appear to offer unique information or perspective.
The detailed version
- Women for America First v. De Blasio · No. 1:20-cv-05746
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
Women for America First brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated its First Amendment rights. According to the complaint, the defendants permitted a “Black Lives Matter” mural on a New York City street on July 9, 2020. That evening, Women for America First requested permission to paint its motto, “Engaging, Inspiring and Empowering Women to Make a Difference!” on a New York City street, but did not receive a response.
Komatsu’s requests
Towaki Komatsu, a nonparty representing himself, asked to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which governs intervention as of right, or under Rule 24(b), which permits intervention in some circumstances at the court’s discretion. In the alternative, he sought permission to appear as a friend of the court. His letter described various alleged wrongs involving government officials, court personnel, judges, and a landlord. He also stated that he wanted the case’s outcome to allow members of the public to paint messages on New York City public surfaces without permits and proposed several messages of his own.
Court’s analysis
For intervention as of right, the court explained that the applicant must satisfy four requirements: a timely request, an interest related to the property or transaction at issue, a risk that the case could impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, and inadequate representation by the existing parties. The court held that Komatsu failed the second requirement. He did not assert an interest in Women for America First’s claimed right to paint its motto or in the alleged denial of that right. His allegations concerned his own asserted rights and were unrelated to Women for America First’s claim, apart from his desire to publicize them through messages on public surfaces. The court stated that any claims Komatsu might have could be brought in a separate case.
The court also denied permissive intervention. It applied the same reasoning and concluded that Komatsu’s asserted interests did not justify allowing him to join this case. The court denied his request to file a friend-of-the-court brief as well. It explained that the parties were represented by capable lawyers and that Komatsu did not appear to have unique information or a perspective that would assist the court.
Disposition
The court denied Komatsu’s motion to intervene as of right, denied his motion for permissive intervention, and denied his motion for leave to appear as a friend of the court. The order did not decide the merits of Women for America First’s underlying First Amendment claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.