## Facts

- A long-running desegregation lawsuit challenged racial segregation in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
- The trial court ordered LAUSD to prepare and implement a reasonably feasible desegregation plan, and that mandate was affirmed on appeal.
- LAUSD developed an integration plan that included mandatory reassignment of some students away from neighborhood schools (with attendant busing).
- Bustop, a nonprofit organization largely composed of LAUSD parents opposing mandatory reassignment/busing, sought to intervene in the desegregation proceedings to challenge the plan’s legality and practicality.
- The Superior Court denied Bustop’s motion to intervene.
- Bustop petitioned the Court of Appeal for writ relief directing the Superior Court to permit intervention.

## Issues

1. Whether, under California Code of Civil Procedure § 387, an organization representing parents whose children would be directly affected by a court-supervised desegregation plan had a sufficient interest to intervene in the ongoing proceedings.
2. Whether existing parties (the school board and desegregation plaintiffs), along with prior public participation in plan development, adequately represented the parents’ interests such that intervention could be denied.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and directed the Superior Court to permit Bustop to intervene.
- The court found that Bustop’s parent-members had a direct and significant interest because mandatory reassignment would materially affect their children’s schooling and daily lives.
- The court rejected the argument that political participation in the plan’s development or representation by the elected school board was an adequate substitute for participation as parties in the judicial review of the plan.
- The court allowed intervention to ensure that arguments concerning the plan’s legality, constitutionality, and feasibility—particularly regarding mandatory reassignment—could be fully presented during judicial supervision of the remedial process.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 387, intervention is required when a proposed intervenor has a direct, substantial interest in the matter being litigated that may be affected by the judgment.
- In institutional reform litigation involving court-supervised structural remedies, persons or organizations directly affected by the remedy may have a protectable interest supporting intervention.
- Prior participation in administrative or political processes, and the general accountability of elected officials, does not necessarily constitute adequate representation for purposes of denying intervention in a judicial proceeding.
- Adequacy of representation is assessed in light of whether existing parties will present the would-be intervenor’s specific interests and arguments concerning the contested remedial measures.

## Conclusion

The court ordered the trial court to allow Bustop to intervene because parents facing direct consequences from mandatory student reassignment had a legally protectable interest in the court-supervised desegregation remedy and their position was not adequately represented by existing parties or by prior public participation in the plan’s formulation.


Bustop v. Superior Court, 69 Cal. App. 3d 66 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)