Russell v. Harris County, Texas

S.D. Texas

Russell v. Harris County, Texas

DecidedMarch 30, 2020

Docket4:19-cv-00226

StatusUnknown

This text of Russell v. Harris County, Texas (Russell v. Harris County, Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Harris County, Texas, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 30, 2020 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

DWIGHT RUSSELL, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-226 § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE After the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, the State of Texas, Governor of Texas, and Attorney General of Texas moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). (Docket Entry No. 38-1). The plaintiffs indicated that they do not oppose the intervention. (Docket Entry No. 45). “Rule 24(a)(2) governs intervention of right based on an interest in the action.” St. Bernard Par. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 914 F.3d 969, 974 (5th Cir. 2019). The Fifth Circuit has established a four-pronged test for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2): (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair his ability to protect that interest; [and] (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.

Id. (quoting Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 835 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 2016)). “Federal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be attained.” Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 656 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994)). The court finds that the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) are met. The intervenors timely moved for intervention and have important interests potentially involved in this action that will not be adequately represented by the existing parties. The State of Texas, Governor of Texas, and Attorney General of Texas’s motion to

intervene, (Docket Entry No. 38), is granted. SIGNED on March 30, 2020, at Houston, Texas.

_______________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 30, 2020 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

DWIGHT RUSSELL, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-226 § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE After the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, the State of Texas, Governor of Texas, and Attorney General of Texas moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). (Docket Entry No. 38-1). The plaintiffs indicated that they do not oppose the intervention. (Docket Entry No. 45). “Rule 24(a)(2) governs intervention of right based on an interest in the action.” St. Bernard Par. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 914 F.3d 969, 974 (5th Cir. 2019). The Fifth Circuit has established a four-pronged test for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2): (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair his ability to protect that interest; [and] (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.

Id. (quoting Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 835 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 2016)). “Federal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be attained.” Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 656 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994)). The court finds that the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) are met. The intervenors timely moved for intervention and have important interests potentially involved in this action that will not be adequately represented by the existing parties. The State of Texas, Governor of Texas, and Attorney General of Texas’s motion to

intervene, (Docket Entry No. 38), is granted. SIGNED on March 30, 2020, at Houston, Texas.

_______________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Russell v. Harris County, Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-harris-county-texas-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack