Intervention as of right, FedRCivP 24(a)(2); Whether the potential intervenor showed a substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case; Whether its interests will be impaired absent intervention; Adequacy of representation; Jurisdiction; 28 USC § 1291; The collateral-order doctrine; Cohen v Beneficial Indus Loan Corp; Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

The court held that intervenor-Fraternal Order of Police, Capitol City Lodge #9 (the FOP) met the requirements to intervene as of right in this excessive force case brought against defendant-City of Columbus, Ohio. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of the FOP’s motion to intervene. Plaintiff-estate alleged that the City’s police force “has a policy or custom of using excessive force against Black people” that resulted in the death of plaintiff’s decedent. The complaint cited provisions of the City’s CBA with the FOP, and suggested changes such as a new disciplinary system. The FOP asserted that it had “both a contractual right and a legal obligation” to intervene. On appeal, the court first addressed its jurisdiction, explaining that although the appeal did not fit under the category of cases for which § 1291 grants it jurisdiction, it had jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. The court noted it had previously held that “‘an order completely denying intervention is immediately reviewable by way of an interlocutory appeal.’” The court agreed with the FOP “that the district court’s order worked as such a complete denial permitting an interlocutory appeal, despite its express invitation for FOP to renew its motion should the case progress to equitable remedies.” Turning to the merits, the court held that the FOP had a “substantial legal interest in the liability phase” where it established a potential impact on its members. The court noted that district courts in the Sixth Circuit “have repeatedly allowed FOP to intervene when the litigation directly implicated the ongoing vitality of provisions that came about as a result of the union’s critical efforts in the collective bargaining process and the rights of its members.” It concluded that “the factual allegations and legal claims for relief support FOP’s plea to intervene.” Further, it determined that the circumstances showed “the City’s defense possibly will be inadequate to protect FOP’s substantial legal interests.” Thus, it held that the FOP “met the requirements of Rule 24(a).”