State of Ohio, et al. v. Norfolk Southern Corp., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio grants Robert Figley and Barbara Adams’ motion to intervene in litigation concerning the East Palestine derailment and a proposed CERCLA consent decree. The court concludes that the motion is timely, the intervenors have substantial legal interests that could be impaired, and the existing parties may not adequately represent those interests. The court alternatively grants permissive intervention and stays pending motions until a status conference.

Holdings

1. Proposed intervenors who seek the same relief sought by an existing plaintiff and do not pursue separate affirmative relief need not independently satisfy Article III standing requirements applicable to an intervenor seeking relief not requested by a plaintiff.
2. Figley and Adams established the four requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2): timeliness, a substantial legal interest, possible impairment of that interest without intervention, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
3. The intervenors' November 17, 2025 motion was timely.
4. Even if intervention of right were unavailable, permissive intervention was warranted because the intervenors' interests shared common factual and legal questions with the main action, and intervention would not cause undue delay or prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed intervenors were required to establish Article III standing to intervene when they sought the same judicial review of the proposed consent decree as an existing plaintiff and did not seek separate affirmative relief.
2. Whether Figley and Adams satisfied the requirements for intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).
3. Whether the court should grant permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1) and (b)(3).

Disposition

other