Opinion ID: 220149
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ancillary Matters

Text: We now turn briefly to the ancillary questions of whether the district court properly dismissed Russell and refused to dismiss the University Defendants.
The University Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to be dismissed as misjoined parties under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and must affirm unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.” Letherer v. Alger Group, 328 F.3d 262, 266 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). 11 Further, the two “compelling interests” advanced by amicus Russell are not actually compelling interests, as their rationale presumes that Proposal 2 does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Moreover, Russell does not show that Proposal 2 is necessary to further these “compelling” state interests. 12 The dissent also makes much ado of the Seattle majority’s response to Justice Powell’s dissenting argument that the majority’s decision would require finding unconstitutional a situation in which a higher authority within a university attempted to alter an admissions committee’s decision to develop an affirmative-action plan. See Seattle, 458 U.S. at 480 n.23 (responding to id. at 498 n.14 (Powell, J., dissenting)). However, the hypothetical situation Justice Powell described is entirely distinguishable from that at issue here, in which decisonmaking authority has been removed to the highest level of state government, not to a higher level of authority within the university. The fact that some reorderings of political processes may be de minimis does not mean that all are. Accordingly, Justice Powell’s argument and the Seattle majority’s Delphic response—made in dicta in a footnote with no supporting explanation—are inapposite. Nos. 08-1387/1389/ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Page 37 1534; 09-1111 Regents of the Univ. of Mich., et al. The district court concluded that the University Defendants were properly joined parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) because “[i]f this Court were to find Proposal 2 unconstitutional, affirmative action would not automatically be reinstated into the admissions process. Rather, the universities would have to choose to do so on their own.” Coal. IV, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 941. The court therefore found that dismissal under Rule 21 was inappropriate. The University Defendants contend, however, that they lack the authority to provide Plaintiffs with the requested relief, an injunction against Proposal 2’s enforcement, and therefore should be dismissed. In support of their argument, the University Defendants point us to an unpublished district court opinion. See Brooks v. Glenn Cnty., No. CV288-146, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4776 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 1989). We are not persuaded. Rule 21 states in relevant part: “On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not define misjoinder, but the cases make clear that misjoinder of parties occurs when [parties] fail to satisfy the conditions for permissive joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).” Glendora v. Malone, 917 F. Supp. 224, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Rule 20(a) requires that a right to relief be asserted against joined defendants. Therefore, “[a] misjoinder of parties . . . frequently is declared because no relief is demanded from one or more of the parties joined as defendants.” Letherer, 328 F.3d at 267 (quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1683, at 475-76 (3d ed. 2001)). The discretionary language of Rule 21, coupled with our deferential standard of review, presents a high hurdle for reversal of the district court’s determination. Here, because Proposal 2 is unconstitutional and university action is necessary to re-implement affirmative-action policies, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the University Defendants’ motion. Nos. 08-1387/1389/ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Page 38 1534; 09-1111 Regents of the Univ. of Mich., et al.
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.