National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al v. State of California et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/16/2016 ORDERING 34 the Court GRANTS the Unions' Unopposed Motion to Intervene under Rule 24(a)(2). (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

MATTHEW J. GAUGER, Bar No. 139785
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
428 J Street, Suite 520
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

5
6

Attorneys for Applicants for Intervention BLET,
BMWE, BRS, IBEW, NCFO, SMART-MD, and SMART-TD

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP.,
et al.,

v.

12
13

ORDER FOR UNIONS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Plaintiff,

11

Case No. 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-EFB

Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
Date: June 17, 2016
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendant.

14
15

and

16

TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET
METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION
WORKERS; MECHANICAL DIVISION OF
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SHEET METAL, AIR RAIL AND
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS;
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS; NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS
DISTRICT OF LOCAL 32BJ, SEIU;
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
SIGNALMEN; and BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
DIVISION/IBT,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Applicants for
Intervention.

27
WEINBERG, ROGER &
ROSENFELD

28
1

A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, California 94501
[phone]

ORDER GRANTING UNIONS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
Case No. 2:14-cv-01056-TLN-DAD
132148\862824

1

Before the court is an unopposed motion by the Transportation Division and the

2

Mechanical Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation

3

Workers (“SMART-TD” and “SMART-MD” respectively), Brotherhood of Locomotive

4

Engineers and Trainmen (“BLET”), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”),

5

National Conference of Firemen & Oilers District of Local 32BJ, SEIU (“NCFO”), Brotherhood

6

of Railroad Signalmen (“BRS”) and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

7

Division/IBT (“BMWED”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Unions”) requesting leave

8

to intervene in the above-captioned case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or,

9

alternatively, pursuant to Rule 24(b). ECF No. 34.

10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides:

11

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
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.

12
13
14
15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In determining whether intervention as of right is appropriate, the court

16

applies a four-part test:

17

(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant
must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the
applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may,
as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to
protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be
adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit.

18
19
20
21

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation

22

omitted). “In determining whether intervention is appropriate, courts are guided primarily by

23

practical and equitable considerations, and the requirements for intervention are broadly

24

interpreted in favor of intervention.” United States v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d 1142, 1148

25

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004)).

26

Here, the court finds that the Unions have satisfied the four requirements under

27

Rule 24(a)(2): (1) the motion is timely; (2) the Unions have a significantly protectable interest in

28

their employee members’ coverage under California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act

WEINBERG, ROGER &
ROSENFELD

2

A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, California 94501
[phone]

ORDER GRANTING UNIONS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
Case No. 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-EFB
132148\862824

1

of 2014 (“the Act”), Cal. Labor Code §§ 245–249, which may be rendered worthless for practical

2

purposes if plaintiffs prevail and the court finds the Act is preempted by federal law, see CSX

3

Transp., Inc. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 944 F. Supp. 1573, 1577–78 (N.D. Ga. 1996);

4

(3) similarly, disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the Unions’

5

ability to protect this interest; and (4) the Unions’ interest is not adequately represented by the

6

existing parties in the action, see Southwest Ctr., 268 F.3d at 822 (setting forth three-prong test

7

for inadequacy of representation). See generally Mem. P. & A. Mot. Intervene, ECF No. 35 at 5–

8

8.

9
10

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Unions’ unopposed motion to intervene
under Rule 24(a)(2).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2016

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WEINBERG, ROGER &
ROSENFELD

3

A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
Alameda, California 94501
[phone]

ORDER GRANTING UNIONS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
Case No. 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-EFB
132148\862824