Floyd v. City of New York
770 F.3d 1051
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Five related injunctions and remedial orders were at issue in Floyd v. City of New York and Ligon v. City of New York, challenging NYPD stop-and-frisk practices as discriminatory.
- Police unions moved to intervene after liability and remedial orders were entered, and after a new City administration was elected.
- Judge Analisa Torres denied the unions’ motions to intervene in July 2014, finding timeliness and protectable interests lacking and noting potential prejudice to settled proceedings.
- The City and plaintiffs later settled, agreeing to terminate the district court’s jurisdiction after five years if substantial compliance with reforms is shown, and to monitor ongoing compliance via the NYPD Inspector General post-monitorship.
- The City sought voluntary dismissal of its appeals with prejudice and expedited mandating to begin remedies; the appeals were ultimately dismissed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unions may intervene under Rule 24 | Floyd/Ligon argue unions lack timely, protectable interest | City argues late intervention would prejudice settled cases | Intervention denied as untimely with no protectable interest |
| Timeliness standard and its application here | Unions claim interest arose only with 2013/2014 rulings | Intervenors should have known their interests far earlier given public filings | District court did not abuse discretion; late intervention prejudicial |
| Whether unions have a legally protectable interest | Interest in reputations and collective bargaining rights | Interests are too remote from the Remedial Order and not protectable | Interests found not legally protectable |
| Effect of the settlement on the merits of the underlying orders | Settlement should not foreclose review of merits questioned by unions | Settlement aims to implement remedial reform; merits not reviewed here | Merits not reviewed; settlement approved and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 602 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2010) (cognizable interest required for intervention)
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (timeliness and discretion in intervention decisions)
- United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 801 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1986) (timeliness factors and prejudice in intervention)
- Catanzano by Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for intervention decisions)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1992) (consent decrees and modification considerations)
- MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 471 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards on intervention and related mechanisms)