Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the denial of Reginald Gibbs’s motion to intervene in consolidated challenges to the state’s Workplace Freedom Act, commonly known as the right-to-work law. The court held that the motion, filed on the day summary judgment motions were argued, was untimely under both intervention of right and permissive intervention standards.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in finding Gibbs's application to intervene untimely under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and Rule 24(b).
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying intervention of right under Rule 24(a).
- Whether the circuit court erred in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Holdings
- A motion to intervene must be timely under both Rule 24(a) and Rule 24(b), and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding Gibbs's motion untimely when it was filed on the day summary judgment motions were argued by counsel already familiar with the litigation's progression and the court's intention to rule expeditiously.
- An order denying intervention is reviewed under a two-prong deferential standard: the final order and ultimate disposition are reviewed for abuse of discretion, underlying factual findings for clear error, and legal questions de novo.
Key quotations
“We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court’s underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” (2)
“In this case, where the motion to intervene was filed on the day that summary judgment motions were argued, by petitioner’s counsel who, as participating amicus counsel, was familiar with the progression of the action and the circuit court’s expressed desire to rule expeditiously, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s having found that petitioner failed to make timely application under either Rule 24(a) or Rule 24(b).” (3)
Factual background
The union respondents challenged West Virginia's Workplace Freedom Act in consolidated civil actions. Gibbs's counsel participated in the litigation as amicus counsel for the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Gibbs moved to intervene on the day the parties argued their cross-motions for summary judgment, after the circuit court had indicated that it was prepared to issue an order on the merits.
Procedural history
The union respondents filed challenges to West Virginia's recently enacted right-to-work law in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and argued those motions, Gibbs moved to intervene on the same day. The circuit court denied intervention as untimely and because Gibbs failed to show that his interests were inadequately protected, and the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.