Motion to Intervene in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Intervene?

Background

Motions to intervene are governed by Practice Book § 9-18 and Conn. Gen Stat. § 52-107. Both sources confirm that a court must join an intervenor if it has an interest that will be affected by the court’s ruling: The court may determine the controversy as between the parties before it, if it can do so without prejudice to the rights of others; but, if a complete determination cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court may direct that such other parties be brought in. If a person not a party has an interest or title which the judgment will affect, the court, on his application, shall direct him to be made a party. (Conn. Gen Stat. § 52-107 [emphasis added]; accord Practice Book § 9-18.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Connecticut courts borrow the four-part test from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24(a) to determine whether a movant may intervene as a matter of right. (Wallingford Ctr. Associates v. Bd. of Tax Review of the Town of Wallingford (2002) 68 Conn. App. 803, 811 [“Connecticut appellate cases often have relied on rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in determining issues of intervention ...”])

To obtain an intervention as of right, a movant must satisfy the following test:

the motion to intervene must be timely,
the movant must have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation,
the movant’s interest must be impaired by disposition of the litigation without the movant’s involvement, and
the movant’s interest must not be represented adequately by any party to the litigation.

(Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2000) 60 Conn. App. 134, 140.)

Permissive Intervention

Similarly, for Permissive intervention, Connecticut courts borrow the two-part test from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24(b) to determine whether a movant may intervene in an action. The rule provides in relevant part:

Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action:

when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or
when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action.

(Rosado, supra, 60 Conn. App. at 138 n.6.)

Further, “[i]n exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” (Id.)

Procedure for Intervention

“A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5.” (Rosado, id.)

“The motion shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” (Id.)

“The same procedure shall be followed when a statute of the United States gives a right to intervene.” (Id.)

“When the constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question in any action in which the United States or an officer, agency, or employee thereof is not a party, the court shall notify the Attorney General of the United States as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 2403....” (Rosado, id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A trial court exercising its discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for permissive intervention balances ‘several factors [including]:

the timeliness of the intervention,
the proposed intervenor's interest in the controversy,
the adequacy of representation of such interests by other parties,
the delay in the proceedings or other prejudice to the existing parties the intervention may cause, and
the necessity for or value of the intervention in resolving the controversy [before the court]....’”

(Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (2006) 279 Conn. 447, 461-62 quoting Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2005) 276 Conn. 168, 226, quoting Horton v. Meskill, supra, 187 Conn. 197; see also AT T Corp. v. Sprint Corp. (2005) 407 F.3d 560, 562 [2d Cir.] [“[r]eversal of a district court's denial of permissive intervention is a very rare bird indeed, so seldom seen as to be considered unique.”])

The Court’s Decision

“[A] ruling on a motion for permissive intervention would be erroneous only in the rare case [in which] such factors weigh so heavily against the ruling that it would amount to an abuse of the trial court's discretion.” (Kerrigan, supra, 279 Conn. at 462.)

In BNY Western Trust v. Roman, (295 Conn. 194, 207 n. 11, 990 A.2d 853 [2010]) the court held that “[b]ecause the applicable test for intervention as of right is conjunctive ... [where the prospective intervenor] has failed to satisfy [one of the requirements to establish intervention as of right], we need not consider whether [it] has satisfied the remaining three [requirements]”. (See also, The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Conn. v. Gauss (2011) 302 Conn. 386, 399.)

Documents for Motion to Intervene in Connecticut

Sort By

QUINN, JAMES Et Al v. PARKER, TYRRELL document preview

COMPLAINT

64 pages

RETURN DATE: MAY 7, 2024 JAMES QUINN, SUPERIOR COURT ELIZABETH MACHA, BARBARA DANIELS, and ANSONIA-MILFORD SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN V. AT NEW BRITAIN TYRRELL PARKER MAY …