16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1089, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8164 Maria Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, Robert Beaver, Applicant-Intervenors

Good Law
572 F.2d 657
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 3, 197877-1156California666 words

Opinion

Opinion

To protect their seniority, appellants, a group of cannery employees, sought intervention in a class action instituted December 3, 1973, by minorities and women to rectify alleged discrimination in the Northern California canning industry. Defendants were the plaintiffs’ unions and employers. The motion to intervene was filed July 2, 1976, seventeen days after a consent decree had become effective. Due to an appeal which temporarily deprived the court of jurisdiction, the court delayed its ruling. The appeal was dismissed and the decree modified before September 22, 1976, when appellants’ motion was heard again. On November 11,1976, the district court denied intervention because the motion was untimely. 73 F.R.D. 289 (N.D.Calif.1976).

While we believe the district court was correct, we take this occasion to emphasize the applicable considerations where, as here, the motion to intervene was filed after the entry of a consent decree which was preceded by extensive, well-publicized industry-wide negotiations.

The primary issue on appeal is: Did the district court abuse its discretion in ruling that the motion was untimely? We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

The question of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.