UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ADA CONDE-VIDAL, ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEJANDRO GARCIA-PADILLA, ET AL,

Defendants.



Civil No. 14-1253 (PG)



OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is asked to allow a new party to intervene in the
pending litigation.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs filed suit on March 25, 2014 challenging Puerto
Ricos codification of opposite-gender marriage. On June 25, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On August 27, 2014, the
defendants moved to dismiss. A day later, Capellanes Internacionales
Cristianos Len de Jud, Inc., a Christian chaplain organization,
moved to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of the eight members of its organization who
reside in Puerto Rico.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), a proposed
intervenor must establish four elements: 1) timeliness; 2) a
substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case; 3) a
realistic apprehension that the ability to protect the interest may be
impaired in the absence of intervention; and 4) the lack of adequate
representation of his position by any existing party. See In re
Efron, 746 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2014). Each of these requirements
must be fulfilled; failure to satisfy any one element forecloses
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 56 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 4
Civil No. 14-1253 (PG) Page 2

intervention. R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584
F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2009)(citation omitted).
Permissive intervention is possible when an applicants claim or
defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
FED.R.CIV.P. 24(b). A district court enjoys very broad discretion in
evaluating a motion for permissive intervention. Daggett v.
Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 172 F.3d
104, 113 (1st Cir. 1999).
III. DISCUSSION
Although Proposed Intervenors motion is timely, it cannot
establish a sufficient interest in the pending litigation to justify
either intervention as of right or permissive intervention.
The First Circuit has defined interest as one that is direct
and significantly protectable. Ungar v. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46, 51
(1st Cir. 2011)(quoting Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531
(1971)). Proposed Intervenor contends that it has a significant
protectable interest in the pending litigation arising from its
fundamental constitutional rights. (Docket No. 32 at 10.) The Court
disagrees.
Proposed Intervenor maintains that, if the present litigation
leads to the invalidation of Article 68, its members will be obligated
to conduct marriages for same-sex couples. Its members will then be
forced to choose whether to adhere to their religious beliefs and
cease being marriage officiants, or whether to comply with Puerto
Ricos marriage laws in violation of their religious beliefs.
However, under Puerto Rico law, [a]ll regularly licensed or
ordained priests or other ministers of the Gospel, [and] Jewish rabbis
. . . may celebrate the marriage rites between all persons legally
authorized to marry. P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31 243 (emphasis
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 56 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 4
Civil No. 14-1253 (PG) Page 3

added). Existing Puerto Rico law imposes no obligation upon the
Proposed Intervenor to perform marriages generally. The present case,
therefore, does not directly implicate the generalized interest in
religious liberty articulated by the Proposed Intevenor. And,
unfortunately for the Proposed Intervenor, [a]n undifferentiated,
generalized interest in the outcome of the case at hand is not . . .
sufficient to meet the standards of Rule 24(a)(2). Pub. Serv. Co. of
New Hampshire v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197, 205 (1st Cir. 1998). While the
Proposed Intervenor raises the very real possibility of future harm to
religious liberty that harm is, as of now, merely theoretical.
Proposed Intervenor cannot therefore establish that they have an
interest that is particular to the litigation pending before the
Court. And because they cannot make this showing, intervention as of
right must be denied, and the Court need not address whether their
interests face impairment or are being adequately represented by the
defendants counsel. See Patch, 136 F.3d at 204 (stating that failure
to run the table and fulfill all four elements requires denial of a
motion to intervene).
Similarly, with regard to permissive intervention, Proposed
Intervenor fails to demonstrate a common question of law or fact
necessary for the Court to permit its intervention in this case. This
case addresses only whether Puerto Ricos marriage laws violate the
plaintiffs equal protection and due process rights. It does not
directly implicate Proposed Intervenors religious liberty; some other
intervening action would be required for any ruling of this Court to
change the permissive nature of Puerto Ricos laws regarding
officiants of marriages. Thus, Proposed Intervenor cannot show a
common question of law or fact that would warrant intervention.
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 56 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 4
Civil No. 14-1253 (PG) Page 4

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Proposed Intervenors
motion. (Docket No. 32.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 17th day of October, 2014.
S/ JUAN M. PREZ-GIMNEZ
JUAN M. PREZ-GIMNEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 56 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 4