Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Smith

• Decision Date: 21 August 1981
• Docket Number: P,No. 80-1087,AFL-CI,80-1087
• Citation: 657 F.2d 102
• Parties: MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,roposed Intervenor-Appellant, v. Donald C. SMITH, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 102

657 F.2d 102

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, v. Donald C. SMITH, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-1087.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1981.

Decided Aug. 21, 1981.

George B. Washington, Zwerdling & Maurer, Mary Elizabeth Bunn, Detroit, Mich., for C# 25 AFSCME.

Frank J. Kelley, Michigan Atty. Gen., William J. Campbell, Thomas Wheeker, David T. Versepit, Lansing, Mich., John E. Stempfle, Detroit, Mich., Michael J. Kiley, Lansing, Mich., Brian J. O'Malley, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service for Developmentally Disabled Citizens, Lansing, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants-appellees.

Before KEITH, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BERTELSMAN, District Judge. ^*

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the district court erroneously denied the application of the appellant labor union to intervene. Intervention of right as well as permissive intervention were denied on the ground that the application was untimely. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

This class action was commenced to improve the plight of the approximately eight hundred mentally handicapped persons who reside at the Plymouth Center for Human Development, an institution located in Plymouth, Michigan. The plaintiff-appellees are the Michigan and Plymouth Associations for Retarded Citizens and twelve representative individuals all of whom are residents of the Plymouth Center. This case was certified as a class action on behalf of the remaining residents of the center. The defendant-appellees are the Director and a Regional Director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health and the Director of the Plymouth Center. The proposed-intervenor-plaintiff-appellant is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Michigan Council 25 and Local 1837 (the Union). The Union is the representative of the 1,100 employees of the Plymouth Center.

In March 1978 District Judge Charles W. Joiner issued a preliminary injunction which, among other things, created a group of monitors who were directed to observe and inspect conditions at the center and to report to the court on a monthly basis. The monitors filed seventeen monthly reports. These reports, wrote Judge Joiner, "... have convinced the court that enormous progress has been made in the care and treatment of the residents of the center."

Eighteen months following the commencement of this action the original parties entered into a stipulation concerning the future of the Plymouth Center. Judge Joiner wrote that, "This stipulation was the result of countless hours of difficult work, and was motivated ... by a genuine concern for the welfare of the ... individuals who reside at the Plymouth Center." Judge Joiner entered a comprehensive memorandum opinion, order and decree, reported at 475 F.Supp. 990 (E.D.Mich.1979), which is in accordance with the stipulation.

The opinion contemplates a significant reduction in the population of the Plymouth Center and, the Union apparently believes, a similar reduction in the number of persons employed by the center. The opinion favors small scale community residence over large scale institutionalization for most residents of the Plymouth Center. It requires more stringent employment standards, training programs to increase employee skills and the development of employee disciplinary policies and procedures. It also contemplates the development of Individual Program Plans for each of the residents of the center. For further details reference is made to the published opinion of the district court.

Following the entry of the opinion of the district court the Union filed an application for both permissive and intervention of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and (b). Rule 24 in pertinent part provides:

(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... 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.

(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.

....

In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.

Denying the application to intervene, Judge Joiner held:

An essential element ... of intervention ... is a timely application by the person seeking to intervene. In this case, (the Union's) motion was made 20 months after the inception of the litigation, and 1 month after the...