United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Texas AFL-CIO's (the
“AFL-CIO”) Motion to Intervene (Dkt. #67). After
reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies the
March 23, 2014, President Obama issued a memorandum directing
the Secretary of Labor to “modernize and streamline the
existing overtime regulations for executive, administrative,
and professional employees.” Presidential Memorandum of
March 13, 2014; Updating and Modernizing Overtime
Regulations, 79 Fed. Reg. 18, 737, 18, 737 (Mar. 13, 2014).
Although the Department revised regulations in 2004, the
President opined, “[R]egulations regarding . . .
overtime requirements . . . for executive, administrative,
and professional employees . . . have not kept up with our
modern economy.” Id. In response to the
President's memorandum, the United States Department of
Labor (the “Department”) published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to revise 29 C.F.R. Part 541. The
Department received more than 293, 000 comments on the
proposed rule, including comments from businesses and state
governments, before publishing the final version of the rule
(the “Final Rule”) on May 23, 2016.
State of Nevada and twenty other states (collectively,
“State Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the
Department, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department, and
their agents (collectively, “Defendants”)
challenging the Final Rule (Dkt. #1). On October 12, 2016,
State Plaintiffs moved for emergency preliminary injunctive
relief (Dkt. #10).
Plano Chamber of Commerce and more than fifty-five Texas and
national business groups (collectively, “Business
Plaintiffs”) filed a similar action challenging the
Final Rule in Plano Chamber of Commerce v. Perez ,
No. 4:16-CV-732 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2016). On October 14,
2016, Business Plaintiffs moved for expedited summary
judgment (No. 4:16-CV-732, Dkt. #7; No. 4:16-CV-731, Dkt.
#35). The Court consolidated Business Plaintiffs' action
with the State Plaintiffs' action on the unopposed motion
from Business Plaintiffs (No. 4:16-CV-732; Dkt. #11).
November 16, 2016, the Court held a preliminary injunction
hearing to consider oral argument regarding State
Plaintiffs' motion. On November 22, 2016, the Court
granted State Plaintiffs' emergency motion for
preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. #60).
December 9, 2016, the AFL-CIO filed its motion to intervene
(Dkt. #67). On December 15, 2016, Business Plaintiffs filed a
response (Dkt. #72). The next day, State Plaintiffs also
filed a response (Dkt. #74). On December 22, 2016, the
AFL-CIO filed a reply (Dkt. #78). On December 28, 2016, State
Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #79).
Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for two forms of
intervention: (1) intervention of right (mandatory
intervention); and (2) permissive intervention. Fed.R.Civ.P.
proposed intervenor is entitled to mandatory intervention if
the following elements are satisfied:
(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 or impede his
ability to protect that interest; (4) the applicant's
interest must be inadequately represented by the existing
parties to the suit.
Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir.
2015). “Failure to satisfy any one requirement
precludes intervention of right.” Haspel &
Davis Milling & Planting Co. v. Bd. of Levee
Comm'rs of the Orleans Levee Dist., 493 F.3d 570,
578 (5th Cir. 2007).
intervention is not mandatory, then it is permissive. A court
may permit anyone to intervene whom “has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact” as long as the intervention does not
“unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b);
see also Heaton v. Monogram CreditCard Bank of
Ga., 297 F.3d 416, 422 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Federal
courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt
and the greater justice could be attained.”). This
decision to permit intervention is a “wholly
discretionary” one, even if there is a common question
of law or fact and the requirements of Rule 24(b) are