U.S. EEOC v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/31/2021 GRANTING 6 Motion to Intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenor is instructed to file her Complaint within five (5) days of the date this Order is electronically filed. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:20-cv-02245 ORDER v. CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXIX, INC. d/b/a HARROLD FORD, and VICTORY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendants. 18 Through this action, Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 19 20 21 22 23 (“EEOC”) filed this lawsuit against Defendants on November 10, 2020. Aryan Rahimi (“Rahimi”) filed a Charge of Discrimination that led to the EEOC’s suit. She states that she was affected by the discrimination alleged in the EEOC’s Complaint. Presently before the Court is Rahimi’s Motion to Intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 filed March 1, 2021. ECF No. 6 (“Motion”). The EEOC has filed a Statement of Non- 24 Opposition. ECF No. 13. Defendants have not opposed the Motion. Rahimi ultimately 25 seeks to join the EEOC’s claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 26 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and to raise additional claims both under the California Fair 27 Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, and under California common 28 1 1 law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Motion, at 2-3. She 2 petitions the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over 3 her state law claims. Motion, at 4. For the reasons that follow, Rahimi’s Motion is 4 GRANTED. 5 Under Rule 24(a), intervention of right shall be permitted when federal statute 6 confers the unconditional right to intervene in the action. Title VII provides individuals a 7 right to intervene. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5 (f)(1) (“[T]he person or persons aggrieved 8 shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the [EEOC] . . . .”). “Most 9 courts agree that this statutory provision permits individuals an ‘unconditional right to 10 intervene’ under Rule 24(a)(1) in a Title VII enforcement action brought by the EEOC 11 against the employer.” E.E.O.C. v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp., No. 1:09-CV-02255- 12 OWW, 2010 WL 3220387, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010). The Court thus determines 13 that Plaintiff-Intervenor has a right to intervene. 14 Rule 24(a) imposes the additional requirement that the application to intervene be 15 timely. In order to determine timeliness, the Court considers the length of time between 16 the intervenor’s learning of his interest and filing, the prejudice to the defendant(s) from 17 intervention, the prejudice to the intervenor from a denial of intervention, and any 18 unusual circumstances. See Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 854 19 (9th Cir. 2016). Rahimi sought to intervene less than three months after the filing of the 20 Complaint and before Defendants served their Answer. See Answer, ECF No. 8 (filed 21 two days after the instant Motion). Based on the early stage of litigation in this matter 22 and the low risk of prejudice to Defendants, the Court deems the Motion timely. 23 Finally, the Court at this time elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 24 Rahimi’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Supplemental jurisdiction over 25 state claims is appropriate when the claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative 26 fact, such that the relationship between [the federal] claim and the state claim permits 27 the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional 28 case.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (quoting Mine 2 1 Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)) (internal quotation marks omitted) 2 (alteration original). Here, the federal and state claims facially appear sufficiently related 3 so as to satisfy “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in 4 considering these claims together. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 5 350 (1988). 6 In light of the foregoing: 7 1. The motion to intervene (ECF No. 6) filed by Aryan Rahimi is GRANTED. 8 2. Plaintiff-Intervenor is instructed to file her Complaint within five (5) days of the 9 10 11 date this Order is electronically filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2021 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?