Motion for Leave to Intervene; Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene; Intervention; Certificate Pursuant to Rule 3.13A; Notice

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs Civil. ACTION 

VERSUS NC. 82-1122 

PAVID CC. FREEN, PT Al. SECTION C 

Defendants 

‘MOTION FOR LFAVE TO INTERVENE 
  

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes 

proposed intervenor, Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr. and moves this 

court for an order granting his intervention in the above 

matter, all for the reasons more fully set forth in the 

memorandum attached hereto. A copy of the proposed intervention 

is similarly attached. 

Original Signed By: 
HARKY A. ROSENBERG 

  

HARRY A. ROSENBERG 

PHELPS, DUNBAR, MARKS, CLAVFERIFE 

5 SIMS 

1300 Hibernia Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

{504) 566-1311 
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ZASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS 

PAVID .C., "TREEN, ET AL, 

Defendants 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE 
  

  

Ihls case 1nvolves a suit on behalf of black persons 

residing and registered to vote in Louisiana seeking declaratory 

and injunctive relief restraining implementation of the reappor- 

tionment plan adopted by the Louisiana Yegislature in Act 20 of 

the 19381 First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana 

Legislature. A federal three judge court entered a judgment 

October 20, 1983 declaring Act 20 in violation of Section 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 USC §1973 and enjoining 

named defendants from enforcing the plan. The Court fixed 

February 6, 1984 as the date for the consideration of 

appropriate remedies. 

 



Every ten years a reapportionment of existing congres- 

sional districts is compelled by Article 1.82 of the United 

States Constitution. Under the 19372 redistricting plan, the 

First Congressional District in Louisiana encompassed St. 

Bernard, Plaquemines and St. Tammany Parishes, together with the 

ront, eastern Mid City, Algiers and New Orleans east 

sections of Orleans Parish. 

The Movant, Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr. is the elected 

representative of District 94 in the Louisiana House of 

Representatives. He resides and is registered to vote in 

Louisiana. Additionally, Mr. Bruneau has served on the House 

Executive Committee and is Chairman of the House Legislative 

Services Council on which he represents the First Congressional 

District. Movant was elected to the Legislature in 1975 and 

re-elected 1979. He has served as the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on the House Reapportionment and as a member of the 

Committee on Congressional Reapportionment. Movant was actively 

involved in the House Reapportionment. 

Proposed intervenor seeks leave intervene in this 

matter pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24, Intervention as of Right. 

Alternatively, intervenor seeks discretionary leave to inter- 

vene. Each shall be addressed separately. However, Prior to 

any such consideration, we point out to the Court that any 

intervenor has the requisite standing to maintain an inter- 

vention even at this stage of the proceedings.  



Post-Judgment Intervention 
  

Post-judgment intervention for the purpose of appeal 

has been found to be timely even in litigation which is not 

representative in nature and in which the intervenor might 

therefore be thought to have a less direct interest in partici- 

pating in the appelate phrase of the action. United Airlines, 
  

Inc, v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385,:.395 n. Fd. 28 423, 433, 
r 

  

Ct. 2464 (1977) citing Hodgson v. United Mine Workers, 153 
  

US. App. D.C. 407, 417-4Y9, Fs, 28 118, 129: Wolpe wv. 

Poretsky, 79 U.S. 8pp. D. C, 14), 144, 144 P, 24 505, 508 

(1944). Where a motion to intervene is made within the appli- 

ble time for filing an appeal, the fact that such intervention 

comes post judgment does not defeat its timeliness. See id. 

The: critical inguiry in such circumstances is whether the inter- 

venor acted promptly after the entry of final judgment. United 

Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, supra. at 432. U.S, 295. 
  

The Court in Volpe v, Poretshy, supr 
  

"When [the intervenor] filed their petition for 
intervention, [they] possess all the rights of a 
party at the stage of the proceedings. This, of 
course, includes the right to appeal. Since the 
ime for appeal had not expired when they sought 

to intervene they should be made parties with the 
right to 'appeal....” 
Consistent with this jurisprudence, movant seeks leave 

tO intervene within the time permitted for appeal and, as such, 

has timely filed for intervention. This conclusion is supported 

by the long line of Jurisprudence which has held that post judg- 

ment intervention for purposes of appeal is timely.  



Intervention as of Right 
  

24(a)(2) provides: 

"Upon timely application, dnyone shall be per -— 
mitted to intervene in an action ... when the 
application claims an interest relating to the 
property or transaction which is the subject of 
the action and he is so situated that disposition 
Of the'action may as a practical matter impair or 
impede his ability to protect that interest, 
unless the applicant's interest is adequately 
represented by existing parties.” » 

This statute sets forth a 3-prong test for the granting 

of an intervention. There must be: (1) an interest relating to 

the property that is subject of the action; (2) the disposition of 

the action may impair or impede the protecton of that interest; 

and, (3) the interest must not be adequately represented by 

existing parties. See, 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and 
  

Procedure, %19380, p. 495, 

As to the first requirement, Mr. Bruneau claims an 

interest relating to the subject matter of the action. Mr. 

Bruneau 1s a resident and registered voter in the First 

Congressional District and, as such, holds a recognized right in 

the districting of that district and the effect upon his votes, 

Additionally, Mr. Bruneau has represented the First Congressional 

District on the House Legislative Services Council and, as such, 

holds a cognizable interest in the reapportionment of that 

distriet entitling him to intervene in this matter.  



Concerning the impairment of the right or the impedence 

Of protection to an interest, clearly the ocutcome of this action 

will have a direct effect upon movant's representation of the 

House Legislative Services Council. Purther, it isiequally 

obvious the effects of this suit will occasion some effect on his 

power to vote and the voting strength and make-up of the Louisiana 

Congressional Districts. . 

Turning now to the issue of representation, Mr. Bruneau's 

desire and need for clarity in the determination of fixed bound- 

aries for the Congressional Districts and interest as a voter in 

those districts are not fully protected by any parties presently 

Privy to this action. Movant seeks leave to intervene to assert 

his rights and interests in the equitable and clear resolution of 

the reapportionment controversy. Movant asserts that due to the 

‘nature of the plaintiff class and the grounds upon which the Court 

has ruled, his interests cannot be fairly and adequately repre- 

gented in appeal by any parties presently party to this action. 

The Court in Wolpe v Poretsky, 144 F., 24 505 {C.A. D.C.   

states: 

Intervention may be allowed after final decree 
where it 1s necessary to preserve some right 
which cannot be otherwise be protected ... When 
[movant] filed their petition for intervention 

appellants had all the rights of a party at that 
stage of the proceedings. This, of course, 

includes the right to appeal ....  



This translates into the finding that the movant may intervene 

where necessary to protect a right not otherwise protected. 

Certainly, from this singular role of a voter he has rights not 

directly protected by others in this action. Secondly, as a 

representative on the House Legislative Services Council, movant's 

interests in preserving a Sistrict which allows for proper repre- 

sentative of various interests is certainly not directly protected 

on appeal. Therefore, movant respectfully submits that he is 

entitled to intervene as a matter of right. 

111. Discretionary Intervention 
  

Alternatively, it is asserted should the Court deny 

intervention as a matter of right, it would be appropriate, in the 

Court's discretion, to permit intevention under Rule Z24{bY (2) 

which provides: 

"Upon timely application anyone may be permitted 
to intervene in an action ... when an applicant's 
claim or defense and the main action have a 
question of law or fact in common .... In exer- 
cising its discretion the court shall consider 
whether the intervention will unduly delay or 
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the 
original parties." 

All that is required under this permissive provision of 

Rule 24 is that there be common questions of fact or law. 

Certainly, the reapportionment of the First Congressional 

District establishes common questions of both law and fact. 

This singular requirement being met, it is within the 

court's discretion to grant the petition of intervention. 7A  



Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, $1911, op. 
  

541-542, 

Moreover, the primary standard governing the Court's 

decision is the issue of timeliness and whether the intervention 

will "unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights 

Of the original parties”. In this regayd, 1t is asserted that 

no prejudice will result to any parties in this action in the 

event intevention is granted. lovant is prepared to proceed 

with the orderly appeal and disposition of this case. 

  

For the reasons stated herein, the motion to leave to 

intervene should be granted. 

RESPECTPRULLY SUBMITTED, 

Original Signed By: 
HARRY A. ROSENBERG 

  

1300 Hibernia Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

{804) 566-1311 
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs CIVIL, ACTION 

VERSUS NO, 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, =P Al. SECTION C 

Defendants 

* * * 

I NT ERY ENTION 
  

The intervention of Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr. alleges 

zr. 

Mr. Bruneau is a resident of and registered voter in 

the State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans. 

1, 

Mr. Bruneau is the elected representative of District 

94 in the Louisiana House of Representatives and has served on 

the House Executive Committee and is Chairman of the House 

Legislative Services Council on which he represents the First 

Congressional District. Further, Mr. Bruneau served as Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on the House Reapportionment and as a member 

of the Committee on Congressional Reapportionment.  



117. 

Mr. Bruneau has an interest in the reapportionment of 

the First and Second Congressional Districts as a voter; 

secondly, as a member of the Louisiana Legislature; and, 

thirdly, as the representative of the First Congressional 

District on the House Legislative Services Council and having 

served on various committees pertaining to the reapportionment 

of that District 

IV. 

Mr. Bruneau adopts and incorporates by reference the 

pleadings filed by named defendants in the above captioned 

matter and further denies the allegations of plaintiffs" 

complaint and avers that the judgment of this Court entered 

October 20, 1883 is incorrect 2s a matter:.-of law and is not 

supported by the record in this case. 

WHEREFORE, Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr., prays 

after due proceedings be had, the judgment entered on October 

20, 1983 be declared incorrect as a matter of law and unsupported 

by the record in this case. 

Original Signed By: 
HARKY A. ROSENBERG 

  

HARRY A. ROSENBERG OF 

PHELPS, DUNBAR, MARKS, CLAVERIE 

& SIMS 

1300 Hibernia Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 
Telephone: (504) 566-3371 
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AlL., 

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS RO. 82-1182 

PAVID €, TRERN, ET AL. SECTION Cr 

Defendants 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO RULE 3.13A 
  

This is to certify that pursuant to local rule 3.132 

undersigned counsel attempted to obtain the consent for the 

filing of the foregoing proposed intervention from all parties 

having an interest to oppose. Counsel obtained the consent of 

defendants, however, was unable to obtain the consent of 

plaintiffs, 

Original Signed By: 
HARRY A. ROSENBERG 

  

HARRY A. ROSENBERG OF 

PHELPS, DUNBAR, MARKS, CLAVERIE 

& SIMS 

1300 Hibernia Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 
Telephone: (504) 5656-1311 
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR  



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

BARBARA MAJOR, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS NO. 82-1192 

DAVID C. TREEN, ET AL. SECTION C , 

Defendants 

R. James Kellogg, Esquire 
631 St. Charles Avenue 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

C. Lani Guinier 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, New York 100313 

Robert A. Kutcher 
John D. Pricke 
624 Whitney Buildin 
New Orleans, louisiana 70130 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the undersigned will bring the 

foregoing motion for leave to intervene before the Honorables 

Henry A. Politz, United States Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth 

Circuit, Pred J. Cassibry and Robert F. Collins, United States 

District Judges, United States Court House, 500 Camp Street, on  



the n day of (he yr 2983 ak 9 o'clock in the 

as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. 

dd 
HARRY A. ROSENBERG OF 

PHELPS, DUNBAR, MARKS, CLAVERIE 

& SIMS 

1300 Hibernia Bank Building 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

Telephone: (504) 566-1311 
ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been 

served on all counsel of record by placing same in the United 

States mail, properly addressed and first class postage prepaid or 

By Hand, this |¥" day of Re hn , 1983, 

Original Signed By: 
HARRY A. ROSENBERG