Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
National Organic Program

Post-judgment Application to Intervene
in Challenge to NOP Denied

Jennifer Fiser
Research Associate

Summary

In Harvey v. Veneman, 222 F.R.D. 213 (D. Me. 2004), the United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the request of three parties and three individuals to request a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in an action involving a challenge to National Organic Program provisions.

Background

Plaintiff Arthur Harvey filed a lawsuit challenging the consistency of the National Organic Program (NOP) and the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522. Harvey v. Veneman, No. Civ. 02-216-P-H, 2003 WL 22327171 (D. Me. Oct. 10, 2003). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Secretary Veneman on all counts. Harvey v. Veneman, 297 F.Supp. 2d 334 (D. Me. 2004). Three organizations (Organic Consumers Association, Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, and Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter) and three individuals (John Clark, Merrill Clark, and Anne Mendenhall) made a post-judgment application to intervene. 222 F.R.D. 213, at 214. The Secretary argued against the application to intervene. Id.

Analysis and Holding

The court noted that postjudgment applications to intervene are generally disfavored. Id. The court considered four factors: (1) there were no exceptional circumstances, (2) prejudice to the applicants was minimal, (3) prejudice to the current parties was minimal, and (4) the application was not timely because the applicants were aware that Harvey planned to file a suit shortly before the case began. Id. at 214-15. The court stated that to allow the parties to intervene in this case "would allow any individual or organization to sit by idly and intervene only if the judgment turns out different from what it had hoped." Id. at 215. Therefore, the court refused the parties application to intervene and refused to request a remand. Id.

The case was decided on April 1, 2004; this summary was posted September 27, 2007.