Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants Vincent Hopkins’s amended motion to intervene in the class action challenging the Metropolitan Police Department’s disability-retirement policy under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court permits intervention to pursue individual monetary damages but limits intervention by denying separate claims for declaratory or injunctive relief. The court concludes that the requirements for permissive intervention are satisfied and that intervention will not cause undue delay or prejudice.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
January 9, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 19-2800 (RC)
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Hopkins satisfied the jurisdictional, timeliness, common-question, and pleading requirements for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1) and (c).
- Whether allowing Hopkins to intervene for individual monetary damages would unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights under Rule 24(b)(3).
- Whether Hopkins could intervene to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief separate from the certified Rule 23(b)(2) class.
Holdings
- Hopkins satisfied Rule 24(b)(1) and (c)'s prerequisites because his ADA and Section 504 claims presented federal questions, his motion was timely or his one-day delay was excusable, his claims shared common questions of law or fact with the class action, and he stated the grounds for intervention and submitted a proposed complaint.
- Hopkins could permissively intervene to pursue individual monetary damages because adding his damages claims would not meaningfully delay or prejudice the existing parties, particularly while fact discovery remained open.
- Hopkins could not intervene to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief separate from the certified Rule 23(b)(2) class; the court limited his intervention to individual monetary damages.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…