Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01767/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01767-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

1

 The "substantive" portion of the motion, which is all of three sentences long, fails to

cite any statutory or procedural basis for the motion and thus violates LRCiv 7.2(b), which

requires a motion to set forth "the points and authorities relied upon in support of the motion." 

The motion is also unaccompanied by a proposed complaint in intervention and thus violates

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c), which mandates, even when a federal statute gives a right to intervene, that

a motion to intervene be "accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim ... for which

intervention is sought."

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity )

Commission, ) 

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 06-1767-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

AutoZone, Inc., )

)

Defendant. ) )

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Intervene (doc. #6) brought by

Chad Farr, the person on whose behalf the E.E.O.C. brought this disability

discrimination action. The Court finds that the motion, to which neither party has 

responded in any manner, should be granted notwithstanding that its presentation

is unacceptably incomplete.1

Case 3:06-cv-01767-PGR Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 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 - 2 -

The Court presumes that the unstated basis of Mr. Farr's motion is

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), which provides in pertinent part that "[u]pon 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[.]" The Court concludes

that Mr. Farr has a statutory right to intervene because Title I of the Americans

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), expressly incorporates the language

of Title VII, which provides that "[t]he person ... aggrieved shall have the right to

intervene in a civil action brought by the [E.E.O.C.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 

See Willis v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 80 Fed.Appx. 63, 66-67 (10th Cir. 2003); McClain

v. Wagner Electric Corp., 550 F.2d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 1977). The Court further

finds that the motion to intervene was timely brought because it was filed some

nine weeks after the commencement of this action.

Since Mr. Farr has not provided the Court with a proposed complaint in

intervention, the only information that the Court has before it regarding the claims

Mr. Farr wants to bring is the statement in his motion that his "allegations will be

the same as those set forth in the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand previously

submitted by the E.E.O.C." Given that statement, and the fact that the statutory

right to intervene does not grant an unconditional right to assert claims in addition

to those asserted by the E.E.O.C., Mr. Farr will be permitted to set forth in his

complaint in intervention only those administratively-exhausted claims of his that

are included in the claims raised by the E.E.O.C. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Chad Farr's Motion to Intervene (doc. #6) is granted

and that he shall be permitted to intervene in this action as a party plaintiff. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01767-PGR Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 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

2

 Mr. Farr's counsel shall familiarize themselves with the Court's Order Setting

Scheduling Conference (doc. #3).

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chad Farr shall file his complaint in

intervention no later than November 13, 2006.

2

DATED this 30th day of October, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-01767-PGR Document 8 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3