Reginald Gibbs v. West Virginia AFL-CIO and James C. Justice, Governor, 17-0320

Several unions filed suit in Kanawha County challenging West Virginia’s 2016 "Workplace Freedom Act" (right-to-work statute). The consolidated cases sought summary judgment on June–October 2016 schedule.
Petitioner Reginald Gibbs, through counsel, filed an amicus brief with the circuit court on October 4, 2016 on behalf of national pro–right-to-work organizations.
On December 2, 2016, the parties argued cross-motions for summary judgment; Gibbs filed a motion to intervene the same day.
The circuit court denied Gibbs’s motion to intervene by order entered March 1, 2017, finding the motion untimely and that Gibbs had not shown his interests were inadequately represented.
Gibbs appealed, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by (1) improperly finding his application untimely and misapplying the Rule 24(a) four-factor timeliness test, and (2) erring in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review to the denial of intervention and clear-error review to underlying facts, and concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding Gibbs’s motion untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of intervention under Rule 24(a)	Gibbs argued his Dec. 2, 2016 motion was timely despite prior amicus participation and that the court misapplied the four-factor timeliness test	Circuit court argued Gibbs waited too long (filed at hearing on summary judgment), knew of proceedings as amicus, and intervention would disrupt an action the court was ready to decide	Denied: Court did not abuse its discretion; motion was untimely given Gibbs’s prior amicus role and the court’s readiness to rule
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	Gibbs argued permissive intervention should be allowed because his interests were aligned and common questions of law/fact existed	Circuit court found untimeliness and lack of special circumstances weighing against permissive intervention; timely-application requirement not satisfied	Denied: Court properly exercised discretion to refuse permissive intervention due to untimeliness and prejudice/delay concerns

Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W.Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997) (articulates standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
Coordinating Council for Independent Living, Inc. v. Palmer, 209 W.Va. 274, 546 S.E.2d 454 (2001) (review standard for intervention appeals)
Stern v. Chemtall Inc., 217 W.Va. 329, 617 S.E.2d 876 (2005) (same two-prong deferential standard of review described)
Pioneer Co. v. Hutchinson, 159 W.Va. 276, 220 S.E.2d 894 (1975) (timeliness of intervention is within trial court’s discretion)
W. Virginia Pub. Employees Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 180 W.Va. 177, 375 S.E.2d 809 (1988) (timeliness factors for intervention)
Pauley v. Bailey, 171 W.Va. 651, 301 S.E.2d 608 (1983) (timeliness and discretionary nature of intervention)