People of the State of New York v. City Of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-00322
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In People v. City of New York, Judge McMahon denied Towaki Komatsu’s requests to intervene or appear as an adviser in the police-protest litigation.
The ruling directly affected Towaki Komatsu, a nonparty representing himself, by keeping him from intervening or appearing as an amicus curiae in the case. It also addressed how his possible claims related to the existing demonstration-related class actions.
What happened
People of the State of New York v. City of New York concerns consolidated lawsuits about New York City and police responses to racial-justice and police-reform demonstrations during the summer of 2020. Towaki Komatsu, who was not already a party and was representing himself, asked to join the case or participate as a court adviser.
The court said most of Komatsu’s allegations involved events unrelated to the summer 2020 demonstrations. It also said the case brought by New York’s Attorney General sought policy changes and court declarations—not money damages—and that existing class actions adequately represented interests connected to the demonstrations. The court noted that Komatsu could pursue separate claims or opt out of the class actions.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied intervention as a matter of right, denied permissive intervention, and denied Komatsu’s alternative request to appear as a court adviser. The court directed the clerk to remove his motion from the list of pending motions.
The detailed version
- People of the State of New York v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00322
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
The court considered a motion by nonparty Towaki Komatsu, who was proceeding without a lawyer, to intervene in the lawsuit brought by the People of the State of New York against the City of New York and others. The lawsuit was one of six consolidated cases concerning policing during New York City demonstrations for racial justice and police reform during the summer of 2020. Komatsu asked to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 or, alternatively, to appear as an amicus curiae, meaning a person who offers information or arguments to assist the court without becoming a party.
Intervention as of Right
Rule 24(a)(2) permits intervention as of right when a timely applicant claims an interest related to the subject of the action, the outcome could impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, and the existing parties do not adequately represent it. The court concluded that Komatsu did not satisfy those requirements.
First, the court found that most of Komatsu’s allegations—that police and court-security personnel had harassed, mistreated, and stalked him over several years—were unrelated to the consolidated lawsuits. Those lawsuits concerned alleged unconstitutional police tactics used in responding to the summer 2020 protests. The court said claims arising from other events would need to be brought in an independent lawsuit.
Second, to the extent Komatsu sought damages for being allegedly assaulted at a summer 2020 demonstration, the court said intervention in the Attorney General’s lawsuit would not protect that interest because the lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages. The court also said Komatsu had not shown that his interest in changes to police policies was inadequately represented by the State’s Attorney General.
Third, the court observed that three other cases—Wood v. De Blasio, Sierra v. City of New York, and Sow v. City of New York—were class actions seeking damages. The court stated that Komatsu would qualify as a class member if he had been injured, detained, or arrested during the demonstrations, and that competent and experienced attorneys were already representing the proposed classes. The court noted that Komatsu had an absolute right to opt out of those class actions and pursue any claims independently, but said intervention in the Attorney General’s lawsuit was not the appropriate remedy for an opt-out class member.
Permissive Intervention and Amicus Request
Rule 24(b) allows permissive intervention in certain circumstances, including when the proposed intervenor has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court denied permissive intervention for substantially the same reasons it denied intervention as of right.
The court also denied Komatsu’s request to appear as an amicus curiae. It found that his submissions would not aid the court or provide insights unavailable from the existing parties.
Disposition
The court denied Komatsu’s motion to intervene or, alternatively, to appear as an amicus curiae. It directed the clerk to remove the motion at Docket No. 26 from the list of pending motions. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims about police conduct during the demonstrations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.