109394, *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2009) are based on the (“claims [that] ‘integration mandate’ found in the Attorney regulations implementing Title are exact situation General’s II” “the specifically contemplated by vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Disability Advocates, Inc. …”), 675 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012). v. N.Y. Coal. for Quality Assisted Living, Second, Rule 24(b)(1)(B) states, in relevant part, that timely motion, the court may “[o]n permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Here, as discussed above, the fact.” United application for intervention is timely. Furthermore, there are common questions States’ of law and fact between the United claims in intervention and existing claims, States’ Plaintiffs’ in that both contend that the State unnecessarily segregates individuals with developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops. Although Rule 24(b)(3) instructs courts to whether “consider the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights[,]” as discussed above, the United participation would not cause undue delay or prejudice. States’ CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Intervene (a) as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, (b) permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dated: March 27, 2013 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, S. AMANDA MARSHALL THOMAS E. PEREZ United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General District of Oregon EVE L. HILL Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General
109394, *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2009) (“claims [that] are based on the ‘integration mandate’ found in the Attorney General’s regulations implementing Title II” are “the exact situation specifically contemplated by …”), vacated sub nom. on other grounds, Disability Advocates, Inc. v. N.Y. Coal. for Quality Assisted Living, 675 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012). Second, Rule 24(b)(1)(B) states, in relevant part, that “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Here, as discussed above, the United States’ application for intervention is timely. Furthermore, there are common questions of law and fact between the United States’ claims in intervention and Plaintiffs’ existing claims, in that both contend that the State unnecessarily segregates individuals with developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops. Although Rule 24(b)(3) instructs courts to “consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights[,]” as discussed above, the United States’ participation would not cause undue delay or prejudice. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Intervene (a) as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, (b) permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dated: March 27, 2013 S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney District of Oregon RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General EVE L. HILL Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General