CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals is upholding a lower court’s decision to deny a motion to intervene in 10 lawsuits challenging West Virginia’s right-to-work law.
Reginald Gibbs appealed Kanawha Circuit Court’s order, which was entered on March 1, denying his motion to intervene in the consolidated civil actions 16-C-959 through -969, which encompass several challenges to West Virginia’s recently-enacted right-to-work law.
Gibbs was seeking to intervene in lawsuits filed by West Virginia ALF-CIO; West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council; United Mine Workers of America; Chauffers, Teamsters, and Helpers, Local No. 175; Amanda Gaines; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 141; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 307; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 317; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 466; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 596; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 968 against Gov. Jim Justice and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
The Supreme Court ruled that it found no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error in the lower court’s decision, according to the Oct. 23 memorandum decision.
“The union respondents filed petitions challenging the statute styled the ‘Workplace Freedom Act’ in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on June 27, 2016,” the memo states. “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on October 4, 2016. On that same date, petitioner’s counsel filed an amicus curiae brief with the circuit court on behalf of the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.”
The parties appeared for a hearing on their summary judgment motions on Dec. 2, 2016. The same day, Gibbs filed his motion to intervene. The circuit court denied his motion by order entered on March 1, citing his lack of timeliness and failure to show that his interests were not adequately protected in the litigation.
On appeal, Gibbs asserts two assignments of error. He argues, first, that “[t]he circuit court abused its discretion in concluding that Gibbs did not make a timely application for intervention, and erred in applying the four-factor test to determine whether Gibbs’s intervention should be granted” under Rule 24(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, he argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to intervene under Rule 24(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
“When evaluating the timeliness of the motion, the circuit court considered whether the action had proceeded so far that intervention would substantially affect the original parties, whether there were unusual circumstances establishing that petitioner’s stated interest was inadequately protected, and whether petitioner knew or should have known of the pending action,” the memo states.
In this case, where the motion to intervene was filed on the day that summary judgment motions were argued, by Gibbs’ counsel who, as participating amicus counsel, was familiar with the progression of the action and the circuit court’s expressed desire to rule expeditiously, the court found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s having found that petitioner failed to make timely application under either Rule 24(a) or Rule 24(b).
“Despite subsequent events, we are particularly mindful of the circuit court’s pronouncement that it was prepared to issue an order on the merits in the underlying case, and we do not look behind that statement,” the memo states.
The Supreme Court affirmed Kanawha Circuit Court’s decision.
W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 17-0320
