This motion is timely because the Court has not yet substantively and substantially engaged the issues in this litigation; intervention will not result in any prejudice to any other party; and the United States had compelling reasons for filing now as opposed to earlier, as it was engaged in good faith negotiations with the State for the past nine months in an effort to resolve the very issues raised in the Complaint in Intervention. The United interests are not adequately protected by the existing parties to States’ the litigation. Because the United States represents the public interest on a national scale, its interests differ from those represented by private Plaintiffs. 383 F.3d EEOC v. Pemco Aeroplex, 1280, 1291 (11th Cir. 2004); 594 F.2d 56, 58 (5th United States v. E. Baton Rouge Sch. Dist., Cir. 1979). Furthermore, the United States has a discrete interest in protecting the rights of individuals, including youth, who are at risk of placement in segregated sheltered workshops. 663 F.3d 1100, 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011). See M.R. v. Dreyfus, The United States also satisfies the requirements for permissive intervention because the action involves the interpretation of statutes that the Attorney General is entrusted by Congress to administer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). See Further support for this Motion is set forth in the United accompanying States’ Memorandum of Law, which is filed concurrently. 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 ALISON BARKOFF Special Counsel for Enforcement Olmstead Civil Rights Division
This motion is timely because the Court has not yet substantively and substantially engaged the issues in this litigation; intervention will not result in any prejudice to any other party; and the United States had compelling reasons for filing now as opposed to earlier, as it was engaged in good faith negotiations with the State for the past nine months in an effort to resolve the very issues raised in the Complaint in Intervention. The United States’ interests are not adequately protected by the existing parties to the litigation. Because the United States represents the public interest on a national scale, its interests differ from those represented by private Plaintiffs. EEOC v. Pemco Aeroplex, 383 F.3d 1280, 1291 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. E. Baton Rouge Sch. Dist., 594 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1979). Furthermore, the United States has a discrete interest in protecting the rights of individuals, including youth, who are at risk of placement in segregated sheltered workshops. See M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011). The United States also satisfies the requirements for permissive intervention because the action involves the interpretation of statutes that the Attorney General is entrusted by Congress to administer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). Further support for this Motion is set forth in the United States’ accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is filed concurrently. Dated: March 27, 2013 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney District of Oregon THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General EVE L. HILL Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General ALISON BARKOFF Special Counsel for Olmstead Enforcement Civil Rights Division