Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-05441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio, Judge Failla denied CPR intervention as of right but granted intervention with the court’s permission.
Communities United for Police Reform was denied intervention as of right but permitted to intervene in the case. The existing plaintiffs and defendants remain parties.
What happened
In Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio, Communities United for Police Reform asked to join the case while the court considered a request for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs and defendants opposed CPR’s request.
The court denied CPR’s request to join automatically because existing defendants adequately represented CPR’s interest in ensuring public agencies followed New York’s Freedom of Information Law. But the court granted CPR permission to participate because its earlier arguments provided useful information and insights.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on August 25, 2020. The ruling denied intervention as of right and granted permissive intervention.
The detailed version
- Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio · No. 1:20-cv-05441
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
Communities United for Police Reform (CPR) moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The court had held the motion pending while deciding the preliminary-injunction motion. The court had granted that motion in part and denied it in part on August 21, 2020. The plaintiffs and defendants opposed CPR’s intervention.
Intervention as of Right
Rule 24(a)(2) permits intervention as of right when a motion is timely, the proposed intervenor has an interest related to the case, resolving the case could impair the intervenor’s ability to protect that interest, and the existing parties do not adequately represent it.
The court held that CPR did not overcome the presumption that its interests were adequately represented. The existing defendants shared CPR’s interest in ensuring that affected public agencies complied with New York’s Freedom of Information Law after the repeal of New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a. CPR did not provide evidence of collusion, conflicting interests, inaction, or incompetence sufficient to overcome that presumption. The court therefore DENIED CPR’s request to intervene as of right.
Permissive Intervention
Rule 24(b)(1)(B) allows a court, in its discretion, to permit intervention when the proposed intervenor has a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action.
The court found CPR’s briefing opposing the preliminary-injunction motion substantially helpful because it provided unique information and insights. The court concluded that CPR’s participation would significantly assist development of the factual issues and fair resolution of the legal questions. It therefore GRANTED CPR’s motion for permissive intervention.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.