Joseph Westenberg v. John F. English

D.C. Circuit

Joseph Westenberg v. John F. English

278 F.2d 275, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2082, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4861

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1960

Docket15484_1

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F.2d 275 (Joseph Westenberg v. John F. English) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Westenberg v. John F. English, 278 F.2d 275, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2082, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4861 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

THe appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion of ap_ pellants, as members of five different local unions of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-housemen and Helpers of America, to intervene and to file a third party complaint in the main case of Cunningham v. English, D.C., 175 F.Supp. 764. The third party complaint filed with the motion to intervene, aside from a general prayer for relief, sought only injunctive and related relief having the purpose of *276 removing Lawrence T. Smith and Martin F. O’Donoghue as Monitors, and to prevent payment of the fees and expenses of the Board of Monitors pending hearing of the third party complaint on its merits.

We think the holding of the District Court that the movants had failed to make the required showing with respect to alleged inadequacy of representation, especially when we consider the limited character of the proposed third party complaint, and that they “have likewise failed to exhibit circumstances which would cause the Court in its discretion to allow permissive intervention,” cannot be held by us to be erroneous. Cf. Distinti v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 272 F.2d 528; Cunningham v. O’Donoghue, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 278 F.2d 274. It follows that a case for intervention for the purposes sought was not made under either Rule 24(a) or (b), Fed.R.Civ.P 28 U.S.C.A.

rmec“

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

THe appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion of ap_ pellants, as members of five different local unions of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-housemen and Helpers of America, to intervene and to file a third party complaint in the main case of Cunningham v. English, D.C., 175 F.Supp. 764. The third party complaint filed with the motion to intervene, aside from a general prayer for relief, sought only injunctive and related relief having the purpose of *276 removing Lawrence T. Smith and Martin F. O’Donoghue as Monitors, and to prevent payment of the fees and expenses of the Board of Monitors pending hearing of the third party complaint on its merits.

We think the holding of the District Court that the movants had failed to make the required showing with respect to alleged inadequacy of representation, especially when we consider the limited character of the proposed third party complaint, and that they “have likewise failed to exhibit circumstances which would cause the Court in its discretion to allow permissive intervention,” cannot be held by us to be erroneous. Cf. Distinti v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 272 F.2d 528; Cunningham v. O’Donoghue, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 278 F.2d 274. It follows that a case for intervention for the purposes sought was not made under either Rule 24(a) or (b), Fed.R.Civ.P 28 U.S.C.A.

rmec“

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F.2d 275, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2082, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-westenberg-v-john-f-english-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack