L&M Bus Corp. v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 1:18-cv-01902

Bus companies sued the NYC Department of Education (DOE) seeking a declaration that certain Employee Protection Provisions (EPPs) in RFB B3182 are preempted by federal law; the court denied a TRO and reserved on a preliminary injunction.
Non-parties Reliant Transportation, a current DOE contractor and prospective bidder, and Local 1181, the union representing a majority of DOE school-bus workers, moved to intervene.
Both movants sought intervention as of right (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)) and, alternatively, permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)); Reliant also sought leave to file an amicus brief if denied intervention.
The DOE took no position on intervention; the Bus Companies opposed both motions.
Court found both motions to intervene timely and that both movants have cognizable interests potentially affected by the litigation, but denied intervention because their interests are adequately represented by the DOE.
Court granted leave for Reliant and Local 1181 to appear as amici curiae (briefs due April 17, 2018) and placed them on the electronic docket.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of motions to intervene	Movants acted promptly after learning of suit	DOE did not oppose; Bus Companies argued potential delay	Motions timely — movants sought intervention within days of notice
Whether movants have a legally protectable interest	Reliant: interest in bidding eligibility; Local 1181: interest in members' EPP protections	DOE argued movants not necessary parties; Bus Companies opposed	Both movants have direct, substantial, legally cognizable interests
Whether disposition may impair movants' interests	Reliant: injunction could bar bidding; Local 1181: ruling could affect members' job/wage protections	Bus Companies downplayed impairment or speculative harm	Court found potential impairment for both movants (practical risk)
Adequacy of representation / entitlement to intervene as of right	Movants: DOE may not fully represent bidder/worker perspectives	DOE and movants share the same ultimate objective (defend EPPs)	Denied intervention as of right — movants failed to rebut presumption that DOE adequately represents their interests; also denied permissive intervention

United States v. Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994) (standard for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a))
Laroe Estates, Inc. v. Town of Chester, 828 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2016) (movant must show a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest)
Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1990) (interest must be more than remote or contingent; representation adequacy principles)
Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) (presumption that existing parties adequately represent similar interests; rebuttal standards)
Floyd v. City of New York, 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014) (union cannot intervene as of right based on members' reputational interests)
H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors governing permissive intervention)
Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 272 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C. 2010) (injunction against bidding can practically impair potential bidders' interests)