A&P v. Town of E. Hampton - 178 F.R.D. 39 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)

Rule:

An applicant for intervention as of right must show that it may not be adequately represented by a named party. This showing places only a minimal burden on the would-be intervenor. Nonetheless, adequate representation is presumed when the would-be intervenor shares the same ultimate objective as a party to the lawsuit. To overcome the presumption of adequate representation in the face of shared objectives, the would-be intervenor must demonstrate collusion, nonfeasance, adversity of interest, or incompetence on the part of the named party that shares the same interest.

Facts:

In 1996, defendant Town of East Hampton (“Town”) adopted and filed with the State of New York a local zoning law, officially known as Local Law No. 17 of 1996 (the "Superstore Law"), amending Chapter 153 of the East Hampton Town Code to restrict the establishment of very large retail stores within East Hampton outside of the Central Business zone. The Superstore Law provides, inter alia, that a building used for a supermarket may not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area and that parking for supermarkets shall be located primarily to the sides or rear of the building. The effect of the Superstore Law was to prevent plaintiff, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("A&P"), from proceeding with its proposal to develop a 33,878 square foot supermarket at a site on Montauk Highway formerly occupied by a Stem's department store. The proposed site is in a Neighborhood Business zone.

A&P brings this suit against the Town, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Town's passage of the Superstore Law was beyond its legislative authority, and that the law itself violates the New York and federal constitutions in that it denies A&P due process and equal protection, and interferes with interstate commerce. A&P also asserts that the law violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is an illegal restraint of trade under New York law. The Town has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Group for the South Fork, Inc. (the "Group") requests leave to intervene as defendants either as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), or alternatively, as a matter of discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2).

Issue:

Should the Group’s motion to intervene be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court denied the motion to intervene with leave to renew the motion at a later stage of the litigation. The court held that the interests of the Group coincided with the interests of defendants in terms of the single legal issue to be determined by the lawsuit, i.e., the validity and constitutionality of the zoning law. The court found that the Group could not have asserted a justification for the law that could not have been equally asserted by defendants. The court denied the Group's motion for permissive intervention because of the potential for the injection of collateral issues.