Blount-Hill v. Zelman
636 F.3d 278
6th Cir.2011Background
- HOPE Academy Northwest Campus and parents sought to intervene in a federal challenge to Ohio's Community Schools Act (OCSA) and its funding mechanism; the district court denied intervention of right and permissive intervention; proposed Intervenors appealed; prior related state actions and a related Hinton settlement influenced the context; the district court previously denied a White Hat intervention; the Seventh Circuit? No—the Sixth Circuit reviewed timeliness de novo; the central issue is whether proposed Intervenors timely intervene under Rule 24(a) and, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of intervention under Rule 24(a) | Proposed Intervenors contend timely given early-stage briefing. | Zelman argues untimely due to extensive progress and delay. | Intervention denied on untimeliness basis (timeliness affirmed) |
| Adequate representation by existing parties | Intervenors would not be adequately represented by Zelman/Defendants. | Defendants argue adequate representation. | Court did not reach on this issue; alternative basis used for affirmance |
| Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) | Intervenors share common questions of law/fact with main action. | Undue delay and prejudice from late intervention. | Denied as improper due to timeliness; amici curiae status retained |
Key Cases Cited
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (standard for intervention elements; mandatory4 factors cited)
- Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1990) (timeliness framework for intervention)
- Glickman v. United States, 226 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2000) (five-factor timeliness test; context matters)
- NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1973) (threshold timeliness requirement for intervention)
- Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep't, 679 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1982) (advising when applicants knew of interest; wait-and-see improper)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1972) (adequacy of representation standard; minimal showing)
- Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) (notice/diligence in recognizing interest; timely intervention)
- United States v. Michigan, 424 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review for intervention elements; timeliness considered)
- Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2002) (de novo application of legal standards in intervention)
- Clean Up Co., LLC v. ADA Assistance Corp., 229 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 2000) (timeliness determination framework (table))