STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WHITE

No. 2:16-CV-00279-DS.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O GEORDIE BUTLER, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. JANE WHITE QUEBEC INC & TRANSPORT EXPLORER INC Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Tort / Motor Vehicle (P.I.) [Personal Injury]
Nature of Suit: 350 Motor Vehicle
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Margary Butler, Plaintiff, represented by William R. Rawlings , LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R RAWLINGS.

Margary Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Travis B. Alkire , LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. RAWLINGS.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Bryan W. Cannon , CANNON LAW ASSOCIATES.

Jane White, Defendant, represented by Tyson E. Hafen , DUANE MORRIS LLP & Virginia T. Tomova , WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER.

Quebec Incorporated and Transport Explorer Inc., Defendant, represented by Tyson E. Hafen , DUANE MORRIS LLP & Virginia T. Tomova , WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER.

Geordie Butler, Defendant, represented by Trystan B. Smith , TRYSTAN SMITH & ASSOCIATES.


MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE

DAVID SAM, District Judge.

Before the court is State Farm Automobile Insurance Company's unopposed Motion to Intervene as a plaintiff in the above entitled matter. This motion is GRANTED on the following grounds:

Movant claims an interest in the subject matter of this action and is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede Movant's interest which is not adequately represented by any other party. Movant asserts its right of subrogation as basis for intervention.

In order for the court to grant permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b), three requirements must be met: "(1) an independent ground for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a claim or defense that has a question of law or fact in common with the main action." E.E.O.C. v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042, 1046 (D.C.Cir. 1998). Movant has met all three requirements. Movant's grounds for subject matter jurisdiction is supplemental jurisdiction, since the original suit previously met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. The motion is timely because the existing parties are still in discovery. Intervention would pose little risk of prejudice to existing parties and denial of intervention could prejudice Movant. Movant's claim has facts and questions of law in common with the main action.

Given Movant's direct and substantial stake in the outcome of this litigation, and for the above reasons, as addressed in greater detail in Movant's Motion, and for good cause appearing, the court hereby grants Movant's motion.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases