Com. of Va. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 76-1270
| Citation | 542 F.2d 214 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1270,76-1270 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Henry M. Massie, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., and Walter A. Marston, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for Commonwealth of Virginia.
Thomas C. Gordon, Jr., Richmond, Va. (William N. Letson, Pittsburgh, Pa., William R. Jentes, Chicago, Ill., and John S. Battle, Jr., Richmond, Va., on brief), for Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, and KUNZIG, Judge *.
The Commonwealth of Virginia appeals the district court's denial of Virginia's motion to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) in a suit by the Virginia Electric & Power Company (VEPCO) against Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse). VEPCO's suit against Westinghouse is one of thirteen similar actions brought against Westinghouse, which have been combined and transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia for a coordinated and consolidated proceeding. Because denial of intervention will not impair or impede Virginia's interests, and its interests are adequately represented by the other party to the action (VEPCO), and in the further interest of judicial economy, we find intervention not warranted. The trial judge, in denying Virginia's motion to intervene, acted properly and did not abuse his discretion. We therefore affirm.
VEPCO's dispute with Westinghouse concerns a contract for nuclear fuel supply through 1979 at a fixed price. Westinghouse has tried to disaffirm the contract, calling it "commercially impractical." VEPCO seeks a declaratory injunction, specific performance, and damages amounting to $522 million. Virginia seeks intervention, alleging that the outcome of the VEPCO-Westinghouse litigation would have direct impact on Virginia citizens, and that the Commonwealth of Virginia should be made a party to assure that the impact would not be harmful.
Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention of right when:
. . . the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Accordingly, Virginia must show first, an interest sufficient to merit intervention; second, that without intervention, its interest may be impaired; and third, that the present litigants do not adequately represent its interest. All three tests must be met if Virginia is to prevail.
The test on review is whether the district judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for intervention.
The district court is entitled to the full range of reasonable discretion in determining whether these requirements (of Rule 24(a)(2)) have been met. Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local U. # 638 of U. S., 520 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir. 1975).
Virginia and Westinghouse argue extensively the question of whether Virginia has a sufficient interest in the litigation based on protecting the "general welfare" of its citizens. Since we decide that Virginia has no right to intervene on other grounds, we do not decide here whether Virginia has sufficient interest in the VEPCO-Westinghouse litigation to permit intervention. For purposes of analyzing the second and third requisites of Rule 24(a)(2), we assume that Virginia's interest is adequate.
Virginia must show that "as a practical matter," its interest may be "impaired" or "impeded" by the trial court's failure to allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.
...579 F.2d 964, 967-68 (5th Cir.1978); Martin v. Kalvar Corp., 411 F.2d 552, 553 (5th Cir.1969). In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214 (4th Cir.1976), the court considered the application of the Commonwealth of Virginia to intervene as plaintiff in a suit by an......
-
Aref v. Holder
...where the applicant “offered no argument not also pressed by the defendant” intervention was not appropriate); Va. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976) (denying intervention because the applicant sought the same relief as the plaintiff). Accordingly, because the app......
-
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
...met before intervention is mandatory; a failure to meet any one will preclude intervention as of right. See Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. 1976). If that happens, then "a court may still allow an applicant to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b), altho......
-
Jones v. Koons Auto. Inc.
...objective as Jones, a presumption arises that Prestige's interests are adequately represented. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976). That presumption may be overcome by demonstrating “adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance.” Id.19 ......
-
POLITICS AND THE COURTROOM: A BATTLE BETWEEN FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24 AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS.
...when a Proposed Intervenor seeks the same relief as an original party, infra Section V.A. (158.) Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir. (159.) See infra Section V.A. (160.) See supra text accompanying notes 16-17. (161.) See supra text accompanying notes 79-83. (1......