U.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Airlines, Inc.; Envoy Air, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; ENVOY
AIR, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
LAWRENCE M. MEADOWS, Proposed
Intervenor,
Movant-Appellant.
No. 18-16204
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04059-SPL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Meadows’s request for oral
argument is denied.
FILED
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Lawrence M. Meadows appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his post-judgment amended motion to intervene. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion
to intervene as a matter of right, and we review for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s decision on the timeliness of the motion. Orange County v. Air
Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Meadows’s post-judgment amended
motion to intervene because it was untimely. See Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572
F.2d 657, 658 (9th Cir. 1978) (motion to intervene filed 17 days after consent
decree became effective was untimely); Orange County, 799 F.2d at 538 (motion
to intervene filed after tentative settlement reached was untimely); League of
United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997)
(timeliness is a threshold requirement for intervention).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Meadows’s motion
for reconsideration because Meadows failed to set forth any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J. Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We lack jurisdiction to review anything other than the district court’s denial
of Meadows’s motion to intervene. See Alaniz, 572 F.2d at 659 (“Inasmuch as
appellants’ application for intervention was properly denied, they are without

-- 2 of 3 --

3
standing to litigate the merits of the decree.”).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --