CHRISTA MCAULIFFE - INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC. et al. v. BILL DE BLASIO et al. - MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Liam

Legal memorandum supporting a motion to intervene as defendants in a federal case in the Southern District of New York. The filing identifies proposed defendant-intervenors, summarizes the factual background, and argues that intervention as of right is available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). It addresses timeliness, substantial interests potentially impaired by disposition, and inadequate representation by existing defendants, and also explains why permissive intervention is appropriate in the alternative.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages37

Reading Time1 h 33 min

AccessFree to download

Table of Contents

Preliminary Statement

Factual Background

Proposed Intervenors

Relevant Law & Analysis

Proposed Intervenors Should be Granted Intervention as of Right Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)

In the Alternative, Permissive Intervention Is Appropriate

Conclusion

Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTA MCAULIFFE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as mayor of New York, et al., Defendants, and TEENS TAKE CHARGE; HISPANIC FEDERATION; DESIS RISING UP AND MOVING; COALITION FOR ASIAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; O.R., a minor by and through his mother and next friend, ELIZABETH PIERRET; A. S., a minor by and through his father and next friend, ODUNLAMI SHOWA; C.M., a minor by and through his mother and next friend, ROSA VELASQUEZ; K.B., a minor by and through her mother and next friend, TIFFANY M. BOND; N.D.F. and N.E.F., minor children by and through their mother and next friend, LAUREN R. MAHONEY, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors. Case No. 1:18-cv-11657 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3 PROPOSED INTERVENORS ........................................................................................................8 RELEVANT LAW & ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................14 I. Proposed Intervenors Should be Granted Intervention as of Right Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)...............................................................................14 A. Proposed Intervenors’ Motion is Timely...............................................................15 B. Intervenors Have Substantial Interests that May be Impaired by the Disposition of the Litigation.................................................................................. 17 C. Proposed Intervenor’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by Defendants.............................................................................................................21 II. In the Alternative, Permissive Intervention Is Appropriate...............................................26 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................30 Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 37 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE(S) CASES ASPIRA of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 58 F.R.D. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) .................................................................................................29 Ass’n of Conn. Lobbyists LLC v. Garfield, 241 F.R.D. 100 (D. Conn. 2007)..............................................................................................29 Brennan v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................. passim Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ...........................................................................................................20, 29 Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 18 Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................21 Caulfield v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 632 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1980) .....................................................................................................29 Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994) .................................

FAQs

What is the document’s main purpose?

To support a motion for proposed intervenors to intervene as defendants in the litigation.

On what basis does the memorandum argue for intervention as of right?

It relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), focusing on timeliness, substantial interests, and inadequate representation by defendants.

If intervention as of right is not granted, what is the alternative request?

The memorandum argues that permissive intervention is appropriate in the alternative.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Liam