Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KOVACEVICH “5" FARMS, a partnership,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:06-cv-00165 OWW TAG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO INTERVENE

(Doc. 14)

Background

On February 13, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

commenced this civil action against defendant Kovacevich “5" Farms. (Doc. 1). The complaint

alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Id.) Furthermore, the complaint

seeks appropriate relief on behalf of the following six charging parties: Patricia Delgado, Myriam

Cazares, Flor Rivera, Miriam Delgado, Terri Salcido and Delia Casas. (Id.)

In a Scheduling Order dated on June 10, 2006, this Court ordered that the foregoing

charging parties were to intervene in this matter within sixty (60) days of such Scheduling Order. 

(Doc. 10, p. 4). In compliance with that order, the charging parties filed the instant Motion for

Leave to Intervene on June 20, 2006. (Doc. 14). In response, the EEOC filed a Notice of NonOpposition to Applicant-Intervener’s Motion for Leave to Intervene. (Doc. 15). Defendant

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Kovacevich “5" Farms also filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Applicant-Intervener’s Motion

for Leave to Intervene. (Doc. 17).

Applicable Law

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, provides that persons aggrieved by

a violation of such Act “shall” have the right to intervene in a civil action instituted by the

EEOC:

If within thirty days after a charged is filed with the Commission . . . the

Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation

agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil

action against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political

subdivision named in the charge. In the case of a respondent which is a

government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, if the Commission has

been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to

the Commission, the Commission shall take no further action and shall refer the

case to the Attorney General who may bring a civil action against such

respondent. . . . The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene

in a civil action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General in a case

involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (emphasis added). See EEOC v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators

and Paperhangers of America, 384 F. Supp. 1264, 1266-67 (D.S.D. 1974) (clause restricting

intervention to cases involving government, government agency or political subdivision applies

only to cases filed by Attorney General; in cases filed by the EEOC itself, “the statute grants the

person aggrieved an unconditional right to intervene”).

Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in turn, provides as follows:

(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to

intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an

unconditional right to intervene . . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Three factors are considered in assessing whether an application to

intervene is “timely”: (1) the stage of the proceedings, (2) whether the parties would be

prejudiced and (3) the reason for any delay in moving to intervene. Northwest Forest Resource

Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836-37 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, where the proceedings have

only recently commenced, where there has been no delay in moving to intervene, and where no

party opposes the motion, it is appropriate to allow intervention.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene (Doc.

14) is GRANTED as to the six charging parties named therein : Patricia Delgado, Myriam

Cazares, Flor Rivera, Miriam Delgado, Terri Salcido and Delia Casas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 08/07/06 Page 3 of 3