## Facts

- The United States alleged that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), acting through the City of Los Angeles and related city entities, engaged in a pattern or practice of violating civil rights through excessive force, false arrests, and improper searches and seizures, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (now 34 U.S.C. § 12601).
- Before filing suit, the United States and the City negotiated a settlement that required the City and LAPD to implement specified police-reform measures.
- The United States filed the federal action, and the parties jointly asked the district court to enter their settlement as a consent decree.
- Two sets of nonparties moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24:
  - The Los Angeles Police Protective League (the collective-bargaining representative for thousands of LAPD officers) argued the consent decree would affect terms and conditions of employment covered by its labor agreements with the City.
  - A group of Los Angeles residents and community organizations argued that LAPD practices—and any reform measures—directly affected their daily lives and safety and that they should have a voice in the case.
- The district court denied both motions to intervene. Both sets of applicants appealed, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Police Protective League was entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), or permissively under Rule 24(b), in a DOJ pattern-or-practice action resolved through a proposed consent decree.
2. Whether the community residents and organizations were entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), or permissively under Rule 24(b), in that same action.
3. How a court should weigh third-party participation against the need to manage a negotiated government consent decree.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention for the Police Protective League.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part as to the community residents and organizations and remanded, holding the district court should allow their participation to the extent required under Rule 24.
- The court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its intervention rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 24(a)(2) intervention as of right requires a timely motion and a showing that (1) the applicant has a significantly protectable interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action, (2) disposition of the action may practically impair that interest, and (3) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.
- When the government is a party, adequate-representation analysis focuses on whether the applicant’s interest meaningfully differs from the government’s interest in enforcing the law, and whether the applicant has made a strong showing that representation will be inadequate.
- A police union’s generalized concern that a consent decree will affect working conditions does not, by itself, establish a right to intervene where the employer municipality is already a party and can represent related interests, and where labor-law channels remain available for bargaining-related disputes.
- Community residents and organizations may have a protectable interest in litigation aimed at curbing unconstitutional police practices, and their interests may diverge from both the United States (which represents broader national enforcement interests) and the City (which may weigh operational and fiscal concerns).
- Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is discretionary and depends on a common question of law or fact and whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to the existing parties; a court may limit the scope of participation to keep proceedings manageable.

## Conclusion

United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002), is a Rule 24 intervention decision arising from a DOJ pattern-or-practice suit resolved through a proposed LAPD consent decree: the Ninth Circuit upheld denial of the police union’s bid to intervene, but held that community residents and organizations were entitled to intervention relief in part and sent the case back to the district court to allow appropriate participation.


United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (2002)