Court Opinion

ID: 2963663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:41.661156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:52.105702
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 15, 1995    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2208

                           ROGER DIONNE and WILLIAM HAYDEN,

                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                 GROUND ROUND, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                      __________

                     ALAN BASCH, ROBERT EISENBERG, JEFFREY EYMER,
              SHANO EZELL, JOSEPH McKENDRY, JAMES RILEY and DIANA KURTZ,

                               Intervenors, Appellants.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Jonathan  J.  Margolis with  whom  Sara  Fleschner  and Kushner  &
            ______________________             _______________      __________
        Sanders were on briefs for intervenors-appellants.
        _______
            Edward  P. Leibensperger  with whom  Ronald M. Jacobs  and Nutter,
            ________________________             ________________      ______
        McClennen & Fish were on brief for defendant-appellee.
        ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Appellants  are seven former  employees of
                 __________

            The Ground  Round, Inc.   Appellants, and  four other  former

            employees,  sought  to  intervene  as plaintiffs  in  an  age

            discrimination suit  brought against Ground Round  by yet two

            more former employees, Roger Dionne  and William Hayden.  The

            district  court denied  intervention.   On  appeal the  seven

            reassert their claim that  they were entitled to intervention

            as  of right or permissively.  See  Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2),
                                           ___

            24(b)(2).  We affirm summarily, substantially for the reasons

            stated by the district court in its order of August 31, 1994.

                 This is a typical  instance of plaintiffs with generally

            similar or parallel claims against a single defendant.  There

            is a common legal framework, potentially one important common

            issue of fact (here, concerning company-wide discrimination),

            and a  host of individual  issues peculiar to  each plaintiff

            involving  his or her job  performance and damages.   This is

            simply not the kind  of case in which Rule  24(a)(2) provides

            for intervention as of right.   See 7C C. Wright, A. Miller &
                                            ___

            M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure   1908, at 305-12 (2d
                     ______________________________

            ed. 1986), and cases there cited.

                 Instead  the case is a  classic example of  one in which

            intervention  "may  be permitted,"  in  the  district court's

            sound   discretion,   because   plaintiff    and   intervenor

            potentially have  questions of  law and/or fact  "in common."

            Fed.  R.   Civ.  P.   24(b).     Here,  the  district   court

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            preliminarily found  that the  supposed common issue  of fact

            rested  on  little  evidence;   the  court  also  found  that

            individual issues substantially  predominated.  This judgment

            was assuredly not an abuse of discretion.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-
                                         -3-