United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE (DKT.
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Lucinda Darrah's motion for
permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) (Dkt. 13). Darrah states that she seeks
to intervene so that this Court will order the City of
Detroit to immediately canvas all of the petitions submitted
to repeal Detroit City Ordinance No. 19-17 (the
“Ordinance”), including those that she attempted
to submit on August 23, 2017. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants
timely filed responses opposing Darrah's intervention
(Dkts. 19, 20). For the reasons set forth below, Darrah's
motion to intervene is denied.
Rule 24 provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court
may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B). A request for
permissive intervention is subject to the sound discretion of
the court. Brewer v. Republic Steel Corp, 513 F.2d
1222, 1225 (6th Cir. 1975). “In exercising its
discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention
will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
original parties' rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(3).
The court may refuse to allow intervention “even though
there is a common question of law or fact, or the
requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied.” 7C
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 1913 (3d ed.). The Federal Rules further provide that
the motion to intervene “must state the grounds for
intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out
the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.”
Defendants first argue that
Darrah's motion should be denied because she has not
appended a pleading to her motion that sets out her claims,
in violation of Rule 24(c). Defs. Resp. at 1 (Dkt. 19). The
Sixth Circuit “take[s] a lenient approach to the
procedural requirements of Rule 24(c), ” E.E.O.C.
v. Guardsmark, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-15229, 2014 WL 12724973,
at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 5, 2014), and has found a district
court's denial of a motion to intervene “on the
basis that [the intervenor] failed to attach a
pleading” to be an abuse of discretion, Providence
Baptist Church v. Hillandale Committee, Ltd., 425 F.3d
309, 314 (6th Cir. 2005). The court reasoned that “the
parties [were] clearly on notice as to [the intervenor's]
positions and arguments.” Id. Here, based on
Darrah's motion, Defendants were able to conclude that
“Ms. Darrah seeks to make the same Charter arguments as
plaintiffs.” Defs. Resp. at 1. Therefore, the Court will
not deny Darrah's motion on this ground.
further argue that Darrah's motion is untimely and
prejudicial, as she seeks to make the same arguments that
have been extensively briefed by the parties. Defs. Resp. at
1. Plaintiffs have already filed an emergency motion
requesting that this Court compel the Defendant City Clerk,
Janice Winfrey, to canvass the petitions submitted to repeal
the Ordinance. See Pls. Emergency Mot. (Dkt. 5). The
original parties fully briefed this issue. However, in its
order denying Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion, the Court
declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim, as the parties had
not yet briefed its merits with a focus of whether it should
be dismissed. See 11/13/2017 Order at 8 (Dkt. 21).
Therefore, Darrah's intervention is not untimely or
Defendants argue that Darrah's position is adequately
represented by the existing plaintiffs. Defs. Resp. at 1. The
Court agrees. Plaintiffs have the exact same interest as
Darrah - that is, to compel the City Clerk to canvass the
petitions to repeal the Ordinance. If Plaintiffs prevail on
their claims, Darrah will have obtained her desired relief.
If they do not prevail, Darrah would not have been able to
prevail either, as her petitions were submitted after
Plaintiffs'. See Mot. to Intervene at 3, 7.
Therefore, as Darrah's position is already adequately
represented, the Court in its discretion denies the motion to
intervene. See Platinum Sports Ltd. v. City of
Detroit, No. 07-cv-12360, 2008 WL 5220576, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Dec. 12, 2008) (“Given that the Proposed
Intervening Plaintiffs' interests . . . are being
adequately represented, the Court is not persuaded to grant
the request for permissive intervention.”).
Darrah's motion to intervene (Dkt. 13) is denied.
 Darrah's motion references
petitions that she says were submitted “the same day
after John Lauve and Robert Davis turned in the bulk of the
7, 900 signatures, ” Mot. to Intervene at 7; that is,
August 18, 2017. However, the exhibits attached to her motion
show that Darrah attempted to file petitions on August 23,
2017. This discrepancy is irrelevant to the resolution of
 Plaintiffs' response in opposition
to the motion to intervene incorporates Defendants'
arguments by reference. Pls. Resp. at 1-2 (Dkt. 20).
 Defendants do note that it is
difficult to discern what claim Darrah seeks to assert. Defs.
Resp. at 1. However, Darrah states that she would like the
Court to “order that the City immediately canvass
all the petitions to Repeal Ordinance 19-17
submitted in a timely manner per the Article 12 of Detroit
2012 Charter rules.” Mot. to Intervene at 3 (emphasis