Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Floyd v. City of New York

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureInterventionSettlementTimelinessFRCP 24(a)FRCP 24(b)intervention as of rightpermissive intervention

Facts

Judge Scheindlin entered orders in Floyd and Ligon finding constitutional violations in NYPD stop-and-frisk practices and imposing reforms overseen by a monitor. In September 2013, several police unions moved to intervene, asserting interests in their members' reputations and in collective bargaining rights, and some also sought to challenge the liability and remedial orders on appeal. After a new mayoral administration took office, the City reached a settlement with plaintiffs under which it would substantially comply with the remedial order and later seek termination of court jurisdiction upon a showing of substantial compliance. Judge Torres denied intervention as untimely and for lack of a legally protectable interest.

Issue

Whether the police unions were entitled to intervene in the district court cases and related appeals after the City and plaintiffs had moved toward settlement. More specifically, the court considered whether the unions' motions were timely under Rule 24 and whether the unions asserted an interest relating to the subject of the action that the law protects.

Rule

To obtain intervention as of right or by permission under Rule 24, an applicant must timely move, show an interest in the action, show that disposition may impair that interest, and show that existing parties do not adequately protect it; failure to satisfy any one requirement is sufficient to deny intervention. Timeliness is evaluated flexibly by considering how long the applicant knew or should have known of its interest, prejudice to existing parties from delay, prejudice to the applicant from denial, and unusual circumstances. A cognizable Rule 24 interest must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable, not remote or contingent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A civil-rights suit against the City of Chicago challenges the police department’s pedestrian-stop practices. After a bench trial and entry of a remedial injunction requiring new training, supervision, and monitoring, the Metro Officers Guild moves to intervene, claiming the order harms members’ reputations; the suit had been covered extensively in public filings, hearings, and local media for more than two years.

How should the court most likely rule on the Guild’s motion to intervene under Rule 24?

Explanation. Rule 24 requires a timely motion and a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest; failure on any one requirement defeats both intervention as of right and permissive intervention. Here, the litigation was public for years, so the union should have known of its alleged interests earlier, and post-judgment-like intervention would prejudice the existing parties by delaying implementation of relief. A generalized reputational concern tied indirectly to findings against the city is too remote and unsupported to qualify as a Rule 24 interest. (Derived from Floyd v. City of New York (n.d.).)