City of Chicago v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

Dist. Ct. erred in denying motion by six airlines under Rule 24(b) to intervene in action by plaintiff-City of Chicago that challenged defendant’s order requiring plaintiff to return almost $6 million in disaster relief funds associated with snow removal at plaintiff’s airport where defendant determined that plaintiff could have obtained said funds from said airlines under User agreements airlines had with plaintiff that called for reimbursement of certain airport-related costs by said airlines. Airlines had standing to intervene where they contended that User agreement did not call for reimbursement of disaster-related airport costs, and where airlines’ claim pertained to common question at issue in underlying action where defendant asserted that airlines were responsible for said costs. Moreover, record did not support Dist. Ct.’s belief that adding six airlines to underlying lawsuit would render said lawsuit unmanageable where all six airlines held similar position in lawsuit.