Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0725-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susan L. BOUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Professional Peace Officers’ Association, on Behalf of Its Members, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Peter PITCHESS; County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Sheriffs Department; Herbert Kaplan; Los Angeles County Department of Personnel; Civil Service Commission (U.S.), Los Angeles; John C. Bollens; Louise L. Frankel; Frank A. Works; James E. Kenney; George S. Nojima; Mary Quinney; John P. Knox; Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-55164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2004.
    
    Decided June 22, 2004.
    Richard P. St. Clair, Esq., Richard P. St. Clair, Santa Monica, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee and Defendant-Appellee.
    Dennis M. Harley, Esq., Dennis M. Harley, Della Bahan, Esq., Bahan & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elizabeth Gibbons, Richard A. Shinee, Green & Shinee, Encino, CA, for Intervenor-Appellant.
    John A. Daly, Esq., Dwyer Daly Brotzen & Bruno, Los Angeles, CA, Douglas R. Hart, Esq., Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq., Elida Bernstein, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The unions waited at least ten months from the time they knew that the case might harm their interests before they sought to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). The district court properly considered the unions’ lack of justification for this delay and the prejudice that allowing such late intervention would have caused to the parties. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir.1999); County of Orange v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir.1986). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the unions’ motion. See Smith, 194 F.3d at 1049; Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409, 411 (9th Cir.1998); League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302, 1307 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.