Opinion ID: 220149
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Russell’s Dismissal

Text: Intervening defendant Russell, a law student at Wayne State University at the time of oral argument, challenges the district court’s decision to dismiss him from the case because he no longer satisfied the requirements for intervention. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Chen, 580 F.3d at 400. “Summary judgment should be granted when the moving party can ‘show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614, 620 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). We also review de novo district court decisions on motions to intervene as of right, except for the element of timeliness, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323, 344 (6th Cir. 2007). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an interested party must meet several requirements before being permitted to intervene as of right: (1) his motion to intervene must be timely; (2) he must have a substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case; (3) he must demonstrate that his ability to protect that interest will be impaired in the absence of intervention; and (4) he must demonstrate that the parties already before the court do not adequately represent his interest. See Coal. III, 501 F.3d at 779. An intervenor also must continue to meet these requirements throughout the duration of the litigation, as courts must be able to ensure that parties maintain a live interest in a case. Accord Morgan v. McDonough, 726 F.2d 11, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1984) (affirming the dismissal of an intervening party whose legal interest had lapsed because “even if [the party’s original] intervention . . . were of right, . . . it would have gained no absolute entitlement to continue as a party until the termination of the suit”); Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 758 A.2d 916, 927 n.15 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000) (“A court also has the authority to dismiss intervenors once their interest in the matter has expired. Federal cases illustrate that intervention as of right does not grant absolute entitlement to continue as a party until termination of the suit.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee’s note (“An intervention of right . . . may be subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive among other things to the Nos. 08-1387/1389/ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Page 39 1534; 09-1111 Regents of the Univ. of Mich., et al. requirements of efficient conduct of the proceedings.”); cf. Friends of Tims Ford v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 585 F.3d 955, 963 n.1 (6th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider the defendantintervenors’ arguments regarding plaintiff’s standing because the intervenors’ ability to protect their interests was impaired only at later stages of litigation). Here, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Attorney General adequately represents Russell’s interests. While Russell’s burden in showing that “representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate” is “minimal,” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972), he still must overcome “the presumption of adequate representation” that arises if he shares “the same ultimate objective as a party to the suit,” United States v. Michigan, 424 F.3d 438, 443-44 (6th Cir. 2005). Although the Attorney General’s and Russell’s interests initially diverged—the Attorney General agreed to a stipulation to delay the application of Proposal 2, whereas Russell had an interest in Proposal 2’s immediate enforcement—their interests are now aligned. Both now share the same ultimate objective: the validation of Proposal 2. The Attorney General has mounted a firm defense of Proposal 2 and succeeded in convincing the district court to grant summary judgment in his favor. See Coal. IV, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 924. As the district court noted, the Attorney General’s and Russell’s summary judgment motions “duplicate each other.” Coal. V, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 971. Thus, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that “Russell’s presence in the litigation is a mere makeweight that adds nothing of substance to the debate over Proposal 2’s constitutionality.” Id. Russell’s intervention in this litigation is therefore no longer proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the Cantrell Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding Russell. While Russell is hereby dismissed as a party to this case, we nonetheless have considered his filings as we would those of amicus curiae. Nos. 08-1387/1389/ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Page 40 1534; 09-1111 Regents of the Univ. of Mich., et al.