IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

Towaki Komatsu, a nonparty representing himself, asked to intervene in the lawsuit identified in the opinion as People of the State of New York v. City of New York. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which governs when a nonparty may join an existing case. Alternatively, he asked to appear as an amicus curiae, meaning a person who offers information or arguments to assist the court without becoming a party.

The lawsuit was one of six consolidated cases arising from demonstrations for racial justice and police reform in New York City during the summer of 2020. The Attorney General’s lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief—court declarations and orders concerning alleged unconstitutional police policies—not money damages for individual injuries.

Reasons for Denying Intervention

The court concluded that Komatsu could not intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). Much of what he alleged involved police and court-security conduct dating back several years and was unrelated to the consolidated cases’ focus on police tactics during the summer 2020 demonstrations. The court stated that claims based on other events would have to be brought in an independent lawsuit and would not be affected by the consolidated cases.

The court also concluded that intervention would not protect Komatsu’s claimed interest in recovering damages for alleged mistreatment at a summer 2020 demonstration because the Attorney General’s lawsuit did not seek monetary relief. In addition, the court found that any interest Komatsu had in changing New York Police Department policies was adequately represented by the Attorney General in the lawsuit.

The court noted that three other cases—Wood v. De Blasio, Sierra v. City of New York, and Sow v. City of New York—were class actions involving claims arising from the demonstrations. The court stated that Komatsu could qualify as a class member if he was injured, detained, or arrested during the demonstrations. It also stated that he had the right to opt out of those class actions and pursue any claims independently, but that intervention in the Attorney General’s lawsuit was not the appropriate remedy for someone who opts out of a proposed plaintiff class.

Other Requests and Disposition

The court denied permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) for substantially the same reasons. It also denied Komatsu’s request to appear as an amicus curiae because his submissions did not provide assistance or insights unavailable from the existing parties.

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Komatsu’s motion to intervene or, alternatively, to appear as an amicus curiae. The clerk was directed to remove the motion from the list of pending motions.