ADC Motions to Enforce and to Intervene

[Updated June 14, 2013] Westchester’s pattern of violating all material elements of the Consent Decree was apparent from the outset. By 2011, it had also become painfully clear that the U.S. Attorney, HUD, and the Monitor were deaf to pleas to hold Westchester to account.

As such, on May 31, 2011, ADC filed both a motion to enforce (see items 1-4) and a motion to intervene (see items 5 and 6). The motion to enforce called on the Court to exercise its own interest in seeing its order (the Consent Decree) enforced, but the Court decided only to take up the motion to intervene. The Government and the Monitor joined with Westchester in opposing the motion to intervene, filing papers in opposition at the end of July, 2011 (see items 7-10). ADC filed reply papers in mid-September, 2011 (see items 12-18). 

ADC requested oral argument before the Court in order to present its case and be available to answer any questions that the Court may have had, but the Court did not hold oral argument. On Jan. 4, 2012, the Court denied ADC’s motion (see item 19). ADC issued a statement upon reviewing the decision (see item 20).