432 F. App'x 94
3d Cir.2011Background
- Olmstead establishes that community-based treatment is required when feasible, and not forced on those who do not desire it.
- Plaintiffs are developmentally disabled DPW residents in ICF/MR facilities seeking ADA/RA rights and class certification for community placement.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including a Planning List and an annual relocation/communication process, with a phased community integration plan.
- Intervenors Springstead seek to intervene, arguing they are class members and their interests would be affected; the district court denied intervention.
- The certified class excludes current or future residents who oppose community placement, and the district court’s interpretation narrows the scope of potential relief for Intervenors.
- On appeal, the court reviews intervention rulings for abuse of discretion and addresses whether intervention of right or permissive intervention is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Intervenors have a right to intervene | Intervenors are direct, practical beneficiaries. | Intervenors’ interests are not directly jeopardized by relief; class excludes them. | No intervention of right. |
| Whether Intervenors should be allowed permissively to intervene | Even permissive intervention could be warranted due to protective interest. | District court correctly denied due to lack of adequate direct interest. | Permissive intervention denied. |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying intervention | Intervention needed to protect vulnerable interests. | Interest not direct; action will not bind Intervenors. | No abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (establishes community placement rights when feasible; not required if undesired)
- Frederick L. v. Dep’t. of Pub. Welfare, 422 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2005) (cites Olmstead integration requirements)
- Mountain Top Condominium Ass’n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 1995) (sufficient interest to support intervention when disposition affects fund rights)
- Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (intervention requires substantial direct impact on interests)
- Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Service, 157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998) (purpose of intervention is direct or concrete interest)
- In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) (timeliness and interest requirements for intervention of right)
- Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of permissive intervention)