UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARY GUTIERREZ, on her own behalf )

and on behalf of a class of those similarly )

situated, et al., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-111-JVB-PRC

)

CITY OF EAST CHICAGO and the )

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY )

OF EAST CHICAGO, )

 Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Intervene as Class Representative in Order

to Seek Contempt Remedies Against the East Chicago Housing Authority [DE 85], filed by nonparty Edith Bradshaw, on February 21, 2018. Defendant East Chicago Housing Authority

(hereinafter “ECHA”) filed a response on April 6, 2018, indicating that it has no objection to the

intervention of Edith Bradshaw as a class representative for purposes of seeking contempt remedies

herein.

On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff Mary Gutierrez filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory

and Injunctive Relief and Damages, challenging the ECHA and the Police Department of the City

of East Chicago’s alleged policy and practice of conducting warrantless and non-consensual criminal

and administrative searches of tenant apartments. On April 1, 2016, Gutierrez filed a Motion for

Class Certification and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On October 5, 2016, the Court entered

a preliminary injunction order prohibiting ECHA from conducting unconstitutional criminal and

administrative searches.
In the instant motion, Edith Bradshaw alleges that, on November 7, 2017, ECHA conducted

a warrantless “housekeeping” inspection of her apartment, despite the fact that Ms. Bradshaw was

not present, that Ms. Bradshaw had explicitly withheld her consent prior to the entry, and there there

were no exigent circumstances, all in violation of the Court’s October 5, 2016 preliminary injunction

order. Ms. Bradshaw seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking contempt sanctions to

compensate her for her damages resulting from ECHA’s violation of the Court’s order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 requires the Court to permit, on timely motion,

intervention by anyone who “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair

or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest unless existing parties adequately represent that

interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). As a threshold matter, Ms. Bradshaw has standing to intervene

because she allegedly suffered psychological and emotional harm has a direct result of ECHA’s

November 7, 2017 allegedly non-consensual and warrantless search of her apartment without

exigent circumstances in violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction order. See City of Chicago

v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 660 F.3d 980, 984 (7th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the motion was

timely filed; Ms. Bradshaw has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of this litigation,

namely securing the benefits of the Court’s preliminary injunction order to be free from

unconstitutional intrusions into her home and to be compensated through contempt sanctions for the

injury she suffered; Ms. Bradshaw’s interest is not represented by any existing party; and Ms.

Bradshaw’s interest in obtaining a remedy for contempt would be impaired if this action were

resolved without her. See Wis. Educ. Ass’n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 657 (7th Cir. 2013)

(citing Ligas ex rel. Foster v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 2007)).

2
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Intervene as Class Representative

in Order to Seek Contempt Remedies Against the East Chicago Housing Authority [DE 85] and

ORDERS Intervenor Edith Bradshaw to FILE her Verified Petition for Contempt and exhibits on

or before April 27, 2018.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2018.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3