1:23-cv-11216
D. Mass.Aug 8, 2023Background
- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts created the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program (about $75M), administered by Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation (MGCC), with eligibility preferences tied to race, sex, and sexual orientation.
- Plaintiffs Brian Dalton and John Troisi (white, heterosexual small-business owners) challenge the program’s race/sex/sexual-orientation–based preferences and seek injunctive relief and class certification.
- Black Economic Council of Massachusetts (BECMA) and Amplify Latinx moved to intervene to defend the program’s race-based preferences; they are nonprofit organizations that assist minority-owned businesses.
- Plaintiffs filed an opposition arguing the Proposed Intervenors fail Rule 24(a)(2) requirements (no direct/protectable interest; no impairment; adequate representation by defendants) and that permissive intervention is unwarranted.
- The defendants (state actors) share the Proposed Intervenors’ objective of defending the program; the case was administratively stayed by stipulation pending review of eligibility criteria and funding decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dalton) | Defendant/Proposed Intervenors' Argument (BECMA/Amplify Latinx) | Held / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of intervention | Motion not timely relative to proceedings and stay (implied) | Motion filed while case pending; intervention justified to protect constituents | No court ruling here; plaintiffs ask denial |
| Direct and protectable interest under Rule 24(a)(2) | Proposed Intervenors lack a direct, contingent, or particularized interest—no member alleged to have applied or have an application pending | Organizations claim interest in preserving race-based eligibility to benefit constituents | No court ruling here; plaintiffs argue intervention should be denied |
| Whether disposition would impair intervenors’ ability to protect interest | Any alleged harm is speculative—removal of preferences expands applicant pool and does not bar assistance or access; injury is competitive, not a protected legal interest | Enjoining preferences would harm constituents’ ability to secure favored access to funds | No court ruling here; plaintiffs argue impairment element not met |
| Adequacy of existing parties to represent interests | Defendants (state actors) have the same objective; presumption of adequate representation applies; Proposed Intervenors offered no tangible evidence of inadequacy | Proposed Intervenors claim government may not adequately protect private organizational interests | No court ruling here; plaintiffs argue presumption not overcome and defense suffices |
| Permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)) | Not appropriate: would add parties, cause delay and complexity, and provides little benefit since defendants adequately represent interests; amici status sufficient | Intervention needed to present perspectives and protect constituents | No court ruling here; plaintiffs urge denial to avoid delay and duplication |
Key Cases Cited
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 308 F.R.D. 39 (D. Mass. 2015) (organizations lacking pending applications were held not to have sufficiently particularized interests to intervene)
- Ungar v. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (describes four-part Rule 24(a)(2) framework)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 1998) (interest must be direct, significantly protectable, and closely related to the dispute)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629 (1st Cir. 1989) (intervenor interest must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the litigation)
- Moosehead Sanitary Dist. v. S. G. Phillips Corp., 610 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1979) (intervenor bears burden to show inadequacy of government representation)
- B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541 (1st Cir. 2006) (presumption of adequate representation where intervenor’s objective matches a named party’s)
- Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc. v. Mosbacher, 966 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1992) (intervention may be appropriate where government accepts relief adverse to public-interest group)
- Ne. Florida Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (distinguishes injury in equal-protection context—denial of equal treatment, not mere inability to obtain benefit)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. LBRY, Inc., 26 F.4th 96 (1st Cir. 2022) (difference in litigation tactics alone does not establish inadequate representation)