United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC, Plaintiff,
STEPHEN D'ANGELO, D'ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D'ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
TALWANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
underlying case arises from a dispute between two former law
partners regarding, inter alia, the assets of their
law firm, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC
(“D&H”). Before this court is Jennifer M.
Carrion's Motion to Intervene [#26] as a matter of
right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Ms. Carrion, a former employee of D&H, is a
judgment creditor of Hashem and D&H, following a November
22, 2011, jury verdict finding them liable for pregnancy
discrimination. She seeks to pursue cross-claims against all
parties in the underlying action. Defendants Stephen
D'Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group oppose the
motion. For the following reasons, Ms.
Carrion's Motion to Intervene [#26] is ALLOWED.
24(a)(2) allows intervention as a matter of right if a
would-be intervenor meets four requirements:
1. The application must be timely . . .;
2. The applicant must claim an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action;
3. Disposition of the action may, as a practical matter,
impair or impede that applicant's ability to protect the
4. The applicant must show that the interest will not be
adequately represented by existing parties.
Conservation Law Found. of New Eng., Inc. v.
Mosbacher, 966 F.2d 39, 41 (1st Cir. 1992). A would-be
intervenor who does not meet any one of these requirements
cannot intervene as a matter of right. See Travelers
Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629, 637 (1st Cir.
1989). The “imprecision” of Rule 24(a)(2)'s
individual requirements mandates, however, that they
“‘be read not discretely, but together, ' and
always with a commonsense view of the overall
litigation.” Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch,
136 F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting United States
v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 983
(2d Cir.1984)). “Because small differences in fact
patterns can significantly affect the outcome, the very
nature of a Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry limits the utility of
comparisons among published opinions.” Id.
there is no dispute as to the timeliness of the motion, the
court considers the remaining three requirements for
intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).
Interest in the Property or Transaction
claim an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the action, a would-be intervenor
must show that he or she has a “significantly
protectable interest.” Id. at 205 (quoting
Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531
(1971)). “Potential economic harm to a would-be
intervenor is a factor that warrants serious consideration in
the interest inquiry.” Id. Additionally, the
interest involved must be direct rather than contingent.
Travelers Indem. Co., 884 F.2d at 638.
Carrion claims an interest relating to the property which is
the subject of this action because she has obtained judgments
against Mr. Hashem and D&H for approximately $500, 000.
Carrion's Mem. Ex. A [#27-1] (Execution as to Hashem);
Ex. B (Execution as to D&H) [#27-2]; Ex. C [#27-3]
(Execution as to Hashem and D&H); Ex. D [#27-4]
(Execution as to Hashem and D&H); Ex. E [#27-5]
(Execution as to Hashem and D&H). The judgment against
D&H is an interest in the subject of the dispute between
Mr. Hashem and Mr. D'Angelo-the assets of D&H. Thus,
Ms. Carrion has a direct interest in the property which is
the subject of the action. Additionally, the outcome of this
litigation may lead to a division of D&H's assets
between Mr. Hashem and Mr. D'Angelo. Since D&H is a