In Federal litigation, Rule 24 governs attempts to intervene in litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1), a court must permit timely intervention where an intervenor “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(1).
Where intervention as a right is unavailable, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that intervenors may seek intervention as of right where they have an interest and are “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2).
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has found that intervenors may intervene as of right where they can satisfy the following four elements: “(1) their motions to intervene were timely; (2) they possess an interest related to the subject matter of the ... action; (3) disposition of the action threatens to impair that interest; and (4) the [parties] fail to represent adequately their interest.” Ligas v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition, courts may deny intervenors’ motions where they fail to establish any of the required four elements. Id.
Finally, Rule 24(b), permissive intervention, requires that the intervenor, on a timely motion, assert either that she:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
Its always a tough proposition to single out a minority group and explain why they are unworthy of being treated equally by the law.
Nair Law LLC stands for minority rights and proudly fights the fight. Contact us if your civil rights or liberties are jeopardized and you will find someone willing to do the right thing to realize the right results.