Dionne v. Basch

USCA1 Opinion

          September 15, 1995    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________



        No. 94-2208



                           ROGER DIONNE and WILLIAM HAYDEN,



                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,



                                          v.



                                 GROUND ROUND, INC.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                      __________



                     ALAN BASCH, ROBERT EISENBERG, JEFFREY EYMER,

              SHANO EZELL, JOSEPH McKENDRY, JAMES RILEY and DIANA KURTZ,



                               Intervenors, Appellants.

                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
_____________



                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________



                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Jonathan  J.  Margolis with  whom  Sara  Fleschner  and Kushner  &
______________________             _______________      __________

        Sanders were on briefs for intervenors-appellants.
_______

            Edward  P. Leibensperger  with whom  Ronald M. Jacobs  and Nutter,
________________________             ________________      ______

        McClennen & Fish were on brief for defendant-appellee.
________________



                                 ____________________



































                                 ____________________































































































































                 Per Curiam.   Appellants  are seven former  employees of
__________



            The Ground  Round, Inc.   Appellants, and  four other  former



            employees,  sought  to  intervene  as plaintiffs  in  an  age



            discrimination suit  brought against Ground Round  by yet two



            more former employees, Roger Dionne  and William Hayden.  The



            district  court denied  intervention.   On  appeal the  seven



            reassert their claim that  they were entitled to intervention



            as  of right or permissively.  See  Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2),
___



            24(b)(2).  We affirm summarily, substantially for the reasons



            stated by the district court in its order of August 31, 1994.



                 This is a typical  instance of plaintiffs with generally



            similar or parallel claims against a single defendant.  There



            is a common legal framework, potentially one important common



            issue of fact (here, concerning company-wide discrimination),



            and a  host of individual  issues peculiar to  each plaintiff



            involving  his or her job  performance and damages.   This is



            simply not the kind  of case in which Rule  24(a)(2) provides



            for intervention as of right.   See 7C C. Wright, A. Miller &
___



            M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure   1908, at 305-12 (2d
______________________________



            ed. 1986), and cases there cited.



                 Instead  the case is a  classic example of  one in which



            intervention  "may  be permitted,"  in  the  district court's



            sound   discretion,   because   plaintiff    and   intervenor



            potentially have  questions of  law and/or fact  "in common."



            Fed.  R.   Civ.  P.   24(b).     Here,  the  district   court







                                         -2-
-2-



























            preliminarily found  that the  supposed common issue  of fact



            rested  on  little  evidence;   the  court  also  found  that



            individual issues substantially  predominated.  This judgment



            was assuredly not an abuse of discretion.



                 Affirmed.
________























































































                                         -3-
-3-