
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 15, 1995    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2208                           ROGER DIONNE and WILLIAM HAYDEN,                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,                                          v.                                 GROUND ROUND, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                      __________                     ALAN BASCH, ROBERT EISENBERG, JEFFREY EYMER,              SHANO EZELL, JOSEPH McKENDRY, JAMES RILEY and DIANA KURTZ,                               Intervenors, Appellants.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Jonathan  J.  Margolis with  whom  Sara  Fleschner  and Kushner  &            ______________________             _______________      __________        Sanders were on briefs for intervenors-appellants.        _______            Edward  P. Leibensperger  with whom  Ronald M. Jacobs  and Nutter,            ________________________             ________________      ______        McClennen & Fish were on brief for defendant-appellee.        ________________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Appellants  are seven former  employees of                 __________            The Ground  Round, Inc.   Appellants, and  four other  former            employees,  sought  to  intervene  as plaintiffs  in  an  age            discrimination suit  brought against Ground Round  by yet two            more former employees, Roger Dionne  and William Hayden.  The            district  court denied  intervention.   On  appeal the  seven            reassert their claim that  they were entitled to intervention            as  of right or permissively.  See  Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2),                                           ___            24(b)(2).  We affirm summarily, substantially for the reasons            stated by the district court in its order of August 31, 1994.                 This is a typical  instance of plaintiffs with generally            similar or parallel claims against a single defendant.  There            is a common legal framework, potentially one important common            issue of fact (here, concerning company-wide discrimination),            and a  host of individual  issues peculiar to  each plaintiff            involving  his or her job  performance and damages.   This is            simply not the kind  of case in which Rule  24(a)(2) provides            for intervention as of right.   See 7C C. Wright, A. Miller &                                            ___            M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure   1908, at 305-12 (2d                     ______________________________            ed. 1986), and cases there cited.                 Instead  the case is a  classic example of  one in which            intervention  "may  be permitted,"  in  the  district court's            sound   discretion,   because   plaintiff    and   intervenor            potentially have  questions of  law and/or fact  "in common."            Fed.  R.   Civ.  P.   24(b).     Here,  the  district   court                                         -2-                                         -2-            preliminarily found  that the  supposed common issue  of fact            rested  on  little  evidence;   the  court  also  found  that            individual issues substantially  predominated.  This judgment            was assuredly not an abuse of discretion.                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -3-                                         -3-
