State of HAWAII, by its Office of Consumer Protection, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Robert L. STONE II, Esquire, dba Gah Law Group, LLC, Defendant, v. Chester Noel Abing; et al., Movants-Appellants.
Decided: December 10, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
James F. Evers, Attorney, Office of Consumer Protection, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff - Appellee Chester Noel Abing, Pro Se Susan Kay Broer-DeShaw, Pro Se Dennis Duane DeShaw, Pro Se
Chester Noel Abing, Susan Kay Broer-DeShaw, and Dennis Duane DeShaw appeal pro se from the district court's order denying their motions to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 in this action filed by The State of Hawaii's Office of Consumer Protection against disbarred attorney defendant Robert L. Stone II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and for an abuse of discretion the denial of permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Perry v. Proposition 8 Off. Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly denied appellants’ motions to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) because appellants failed to identify a significant protectable interest that could be impaired by this action and defendant Stone adequately represented their interests. See Perry, 587 F.3d at 950 (requirements for a party to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)); Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003) (“When an applicant for intervention and an existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises.”).
For the same reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ requests to intervene permissibly under Rule 24(b). See Perry, 587 F.3d at 955 (requirements for a party to intervene permissibly under Rule 24(b)); see id. (in addition to the requirements in Rule 24(b), “the court may also consider other factors in the exercise of its discretion, including the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest and whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Appellants’ motion to stay the district court proceedings (Docket Entry No. 32) is denied as moot.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.