Intervention allows non-parties to join ongoing lawsuits to protect their interests. It promotes efficiency by resolving related claims together and ensures all interested parties are heard. This mechanism can occur at any stage of litigation.
Intervention comes in two flavors: intervention of right and permissive intervention. The former is mandatory when requirements are met, while the latter is up to the court's discretion. Both types have specific rules and considerations for approval.
Intervention in Civil Litigation
Purpose and Mechanism of Intervention
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Mechanism of Intervention
Government Intervention | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Government Intervention | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Mechanism of Intervention
Government Intervention | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Jurisdiction, Types of Law, and the Selection of Judges | Texas Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Government Intervention | OER Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
U S Courts: Due Process and Equality Under the Law | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Intervention allows non-parties to join ongoing lawsuits protecting interests affected by litigation outcomes
- Promotes judicial economy resolving related claims in single proceeding
- Ensures all interested parties have opportunity to be heard
- Occurs at any litigation stage (initial pleadings to post-judgment proceedings)
- Intervenor becomes full party with rights to participate in discovery, motions, and trial
- Sought by individuals, corporations, government entities, or organizations with stake in outcome
- Governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24 in federal courts
- State courts have similar but varying rules
Types and Timing of Intervention
- Intervention possible at any stage subject to timeliness requirements
- Timing affects consideration under Rule 24(a) or 24(b)
- Later requests more likely fall under permissive intervention
- Intervention sought by various entities (individuals, corporations, government agencies)
- Federal Rule 24 governs federal courts
- State courts have analogous rules with potential variations
Intervention of Right vs Permissive Intervention
Key Differences
- Intervention of right mandatory when Rule 24(a) requirements met
- Permissive intervention subject to court's discretion under Rule 24(b)
- Intervention of right requires stronger showing of interest and potential harm
- Permissive intervention allows broader range of interests
- Court weighs potential benefits and drawbacks
- Burden of proof for intervention of right on party opposing intervention
- Burden for permissive intervention on party seeking to intervene
- Intervention of right granted more frequently due to mandatory nature when requirements met
Legal Standards and Considerations
- Intervention of right requires direct, substantial, legally protectable interest
- Not merely economic or contingent
- Permissive intervention requires claim or defense sharing common question of law or fact
- Both types require filing motion to intervene with pleading stating claim or defense
- Timeliness critical factor for both types
- Assessed based on stage of proceedings and potential prejudice to existing parties
- Rule 24(b)(2) allows government intervention if claim based on statute or executive order they administer
Requirements for Intervention
Intervention of Right (Rule 24(a))
- Timely motion filed
- Interest relating to property or transaction subject of action
- Potential impairment of interest if action proceeds without intervenor
- Inadequate representation of interest by existing parties
- Interest must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable
- Examples: property ownership in dispute, contract rights at stake
Permissive Intervention (Rule 24(b))
- Timely motion filed
- Claim or defense sharing common question of law or fact with main action
- No undue delay or prejudice to original parties' rights
- Government officer or agency may intervene if claim based on statute they administer
- Example: EPA intervening in environmental lawsuit
Timeliness Considerations
- Critical factor for both intervention types
- Assessed based on stage of proceedings and potential prejudice
- Later interventions face higher scrutiny due to potential disruption
- Examples of timeliness factors:
- Length of time intervenor knew of interest
- Prejudice to existing parties from delay
- Prejudice to intervenor if intervention denied
Discretion in Permissive Intervention
Factors Considered by Courts
- Nature and extent of intervenor's interest
- Potential delay or prejudice to original parties
- Value of intervenor's contribution to case
- Balance benefits of intervention against complications or delays
- Adequacy of representation by existing parties (less crucial than in intervention of right)
- Stage of proceedings when intervention sought
- Protection of intervenor's interests through other means (amicus briefs, separate lawsuits)
Court's Authority and Review
- Broad discretion in granting or denying permissive intervention
- May impose conditions on intervention
- Limiting participation to specific issues or stages
- Denial of permissive intervention reviewed under abuse of discretion standard
- Significant deference given to trial court's decision
- Examples of court discretion:
- Allowing intervention but limiting discovery rights
- Permitting intervention for settlement discussions only
Key Terms to Review (17)
Intervenor: An intervenor is a third party who joins an ongoing lawsuit because they have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Their participation can help ensure that their rights or interests are represented and can influence the court's decision. Intervenors can come into play at various stages of a civil litigation process, especially during the intervention phase, where they seek to become part of an existing legal dispute.
Judicial Economy: Judicial economy refers to the principle of minimizing waste of judicial resources and promoting efficiency in the legal process. It aims to streamline proceedings, reduce unnecessary litigation, and encourage resolution of disputes in a way that conserves court time and resources. This concept underpins various procedural rules and doctrines that facilitate quicker and more cost-effective dispute resolution.
Inadequate representation: Inadequate representation occurs when the interests of an absent party are not sufficiently represented in a legal proceeding. This concept is crucial because it can lead to unfair outcomes, especially in cases where the absent party could have important stakes in the matter being adjudicated. If a party’s interests are not adequately represented, it may undermine the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.
Significant Legal Interest: Significant legal interest refers to the stake or involvement an individual or entity has in a legal matter, particularly in relation to a dispute or claim. This concept is crucial for understanding who has the right to intervene in legal proceedings, as it helps determine whether a party is sufficiently affected by the outcome to warrant participation. When a party has a significant legal interest, it implies that their rights or obligations may be impacted, thus justifying their involvement in the case.
United States v. Michigan: United States v. Michigan is a landmark case that addresses the issue of intervention in federal court, particularly concerning the federal government's ability to protect its interests in a state’s management of natural resources. This case illustrates how the federal government can intervene to ensure that states comply with federal law, especially regarding environmental protection and resource allocation.
Prejudice to existing parties: Prejudice to existing parties refers to the potential harm or disadvantage that may occur to the current participants in a legal action if a new party is allowed to intervene in the case. This concept is crucial when evaluating intervention motions, as it assesses whether adding a new party would disrupt the proceedings, alter existing rights, or negatively impact the legal strategies of the current parties involved.
Original parties: Original parties refer to the individuals or entities that are initially involved in a legal action, typically as plaintiffs or defendants. These parties are the ones who have standing to bring a lawsuit or respond to a claim and are essential for establishing the jurisdiction of the court. The actions and decisions of these parties form the foundation of the case and set the stage for any subsequent interventions or changes in party status.
Perry v. Proposition 8: Perry v. Proposition 8 is a landmark case in which the U.S. Court ruled that California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. The case highlighted significant legal principles regarding equal protection under the law and the rights of individuals to marry, influencing the broader conversation about LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality in the United States.
Notice of Intervention: A notice of intervention is a formal document filed by a party who seeks to join an ongoing lawsuit, asserting their interest in the case and requesting the court's permission to become involved. This notice is crucial as it informs the existing parties and the court of the new party's intent to intervene, thereby ensuring that all relevant interests are represented in the proceedings.
Motion to intervene: A motion to intervene is a legal request made by a non-party to join ongoing litigation because they have a significant interest in the outcome of the case. This motion allows the intervenor to assert their rights or protect their interests that may be affected by the judgment, ensuring that all relevant parties are included in the decision-making process. The ability to intervene is governed by specific rules, allowing for both permissive and mandatory intervention depending on the circumstances and legal standards involved.
Interest Relating to the Action: Interest relating to the action refers to a legal concept that involves a party's stake or concern in the outcome of a lawsuit, which is essential when determining whether that party has the right to intervene in a legal proceeding. This interest must be direct and substantial, ensuring that the intervenor will be affected by the judgment and that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties. The notion ensures that individuals with a legitimate concern about a case can join the litigation to protect their rights.
Rule 24(b): Rule 24(b) refers to a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows for permissive intervention in a legal action. This means that a person or entity can join an ongoing lawsuit if they have a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the existing action. This rule promotes judicial efficiency and helps to resolve related issues in a single proceeding, preventing multiple lawsuits over the same matter.
Rule 24(a): Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the requirements for intervention as of right in a legal proceeding. This rule allows a non-party to join an ongoing lawsuit if they have a significant interest in the matter and their ability to protect that interest may be impaired without intervention. The rule ensures that those with a vested interest can have their voices heard in the proceedings, promoting fairness and justice in legal outcomes.
Rule 24: Rule 24 is a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that governs the intervention of parties in ongoing litigation. It allows a person or entity to join an existing lawsuit either as a matter of right or with permission from the court. This rule is crucial for ensuring that all parties with a significant interest in the outcome can participate and protect their rights.
Intervention as of Right: Intervention as of right is a legal mechanism that allows a non-party to join an ongoing lawsuit when they have a significant interest in the outcome. This right to intervene typically arises when the existing parties may not adequately protect the intervenor's interests, and it is often grounded in statutory or constitutional provisions. The concept is crucial because it ensures that individuals or entities who may be affected by a judgment can have their voices heard and their interests represented in court.
Permissive intervention: Permissive intervention is a legal mechanism that allows a third party to join ongoing litigation with the court's approval. This type of intervention is typically granted when the intervenor's interest may be affected by the outcome of the case, but does not require a significant stake in the matter. It serves to promote judicial efficiency by enabling related parties to participate and present their perspectives in a case where their interests may be indirectly impacted.
Timeliness: Timeliness refers to the requirement that legal actions, such as objections, motions, or appeals, must be filed within a specific timeframe set by the rules or statutes. Adhering to timeliness ensures fairness in legal proceedings and promotes efficient resolution of cases, as delays can result in the dismissal of claims or loss of rights.