Case 2:18-cv-00736-JCC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 4

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

CHONG and MARILYN YIM, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. CR18-0736-JCC
ORDER

v.

11

THE CITY OF SEATTLE,

12
13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Pioneer Human Services (“Pioneer”) and the

16

Tenants Union of Washington’s (“TU”) motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 12). Having thoroughly

17

considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument

18

unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs, individual landlords and a membership association providing screening

21

services for its landlord members, have filed suit against the City of Seattle. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2–

22

3.) They challenge the constitutionality of Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance

23

(“Ordinance”), Seattle Municipal Code (“SMC”) § 14.09 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4–5.)

24

Specifically, they allege that the Ordinance, which precludes landlords from taking adverse

25
26
ORDER
C18-0736-JCC
PAGE - 1

 Case 2:18-cv-00736-JCC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 4

1

actions against tenants and prospective tenants based on criminal history 1, violates landlords’

2

free speech and substantive due process rights. (Id. at 14–18.) Pioneer and TU, proposed

3

intervenors, are nonprofit organizations who advocate for tenants’ rights and assist people with

4

criminal records in securing housing. (Dkt. No. 12 at 2–4.) Both actively participated in a

5

coalition that played a role in the passage of the Ordinance. 2 (Id. at 3–4.) They move to intervene

6

as defendants, alleging that the City does not adequately represent their interests. (Id. at 9–12.)

7

They argue both for intervention by right and permissive intervention. (See generally Dkt. No.

8

12.) Plaintiffs and Defendant oppose intervention. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 18, 20.)

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION
Pioneer and TU have not demonstrated that they meet the requirements for intervention

11

as a matter of right. Nor is permissive intervention warranted. Pioneer and TU’s primary concern

12

is how the City will interpret and apply the Ordinance—not whether the Ordinance is, indeed,

13

valid. While they may bring an as-applied challenge to the City’s application of the Ordinance,

14

they have not demonstrated a basis to intervene in this suit, which challenges the Ordinance in its

15

entirety.

16
17

A.

Intervention by Right

Absent a statutory right to intervene, a party seeking to intervene by right must: (1) timely

18

move to intervene, (2) have a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or

19

transaction that is the subject of the action, (3) be situated such that the disposition of the action

20

may impair or impede the party’s ability to protect that interest, and (4) not be adequately

21

represented by existing parties. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003); see

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). At issue here is whether the City will adequately represent Pioneer and

23
1

24
25
26

There are limited exceptions for sex offender tenants and landlords of federally assisted
housing. SMC § 14.09.025(A)(2)–(3).
2

They also advocated for strengthening the Ordinance. (Dkt. No. 12 at 3–4.) As
originally proposed, the Ordinance would have allowed the use of criminal background checks
by landlords for convictions within the previous two years. (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.)
ORDER
C18-0736-JCC
PAGE - 2

 Case 2:18-cv-00736-JCC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 4

1

TUs interests. 3 Because Pioneer and TU wish to intervene on behalf of the City, a government

2

entity, they must “make a ‘very compelling showing’ of the [City’s] inadequacy” in protecting

3

their interests. Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S., 450 F.3d 436, 443 (9th Cir. 2006).

4

In distinguishing their interests from that of the City, Pioneer and TU focus on potentially

5

divergent interpretations of a provision within the Ordinance exempting providers of federally

6

assisted housing. (Dkt. No. 12 at 11.) The Ordinance provides that it does not apply to an

7

“adverse action taken by landlords of federally assisted housing subject to federal regulations

8

that require denial of tenancy” based on “sex offender registration” or a conviction for the

9

“manufacture or production of methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing.”

10

SMC § 14.09.115(B). The Ordinance also provides that in the event of a conflict, “federal

11

requirements shall supersede the requirements of [the Ordinance].” Id. at .115(A). Seattle

12

Housing Authority (“SHA”) has indicated that, based on the language above, portions of the

13

Ordinance may not apply to it. (Dkt. No. 13-5 at 2–5.)

14

Pioneer and TU assert that SHA’s possibly divergent interpretation of this provision

15

demonstrates that the City will not adequately represent its interest. (Dkt. No. 12 at 11.) But this

16

issue is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims—that the Ordinance is facially invalid in that it limits

17

protected speech and subverts due process. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 14–18.) On those claims, Pioneer

18

and TU have comparable interests to that of the City. Therefore, the City will adequately

19

represent Pioneer and TU’s interest. Accordingly, Pioneer and TU fail to show that they qualify

20

for intervention as a matter of right.

21
22

B.

Permissive Intervention

A Court, in its discretion, may grant permissive intervention where the applicant “has a

23

claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” and where

24

intervention would not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’

25
3

26

The City concedes all other elements are met, while Plaintiffs concede that the second
and third elements are met. (Dkt. Nos. 18 at 3, 20 at 3.)
ORDER
C18-0736-JCC
PAGE - 3

 Case 2:18-cv-00736-JCC Document 22 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 4

1

rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), (b)(3). The Court may consider factors including, (1) “the

2

nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest,” (2) whether existing parties adequately represent

3

those interests, (3) “the legal position [intervenors] seek to advance,” and (4) “whether parties

4

seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual

5

issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.”

6

Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).

7

As described above, Pioneer and TU’s interests, as it relates to Plaintiff’s claims, will be

8

adequately represented by the City. Moreover, the legal position Pioneer and TU seek to

9

advance—that SHA is subject to the Ordinance—is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims. While the

10

Court does appreciate the on-the-ground perspective Pioneer and TU could contribute on the

11

effects of housing discrimination related to criminal records (see Dkt. No. 12 at 11–12), that

12

information is best provided through an amicus curiae brief. Therefore, the Court finds that

13

permissive intervention is not warranted, but grants Pioneer and TU leave to file a joint amicus

14

curiae brief. (See Dkt. No. 10 at 2.)

15

III.

CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons, Pioneer and TU’s motion for to intervene (Dkt. No. 12) is

17

DENIED. However, leave to file a joint amicus curiae brief, not to exceed twenty-four (24)

18

pages is GRANTED. The brief should be filed consistent with the summary judgment briefing

19

schedule established in this matter (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.)

20

DATED this 23rd day of August 2018.

A

21
22
23

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0736-JCC
PAGE - 4