A motion to intervene or complaint in intervention is a legal action filed by a third party who is not initially involved in an ongoing lawsuit but has a vested interest in the outcome. The intervening party requests permission from the court to become a party to the case in order to protect their rights or interests. If granted, the intervener can actively participate in the proceedings, presenting their arguments, evidence, and legal claims alongside the original parties.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals has recognized that, “if the person seeking intervention will be left with his right to pursue his own independent remedy against the parties, regardless of the outcome of the pending case, then he has no interest that needs protecting by intervention of right.” (Turner v. Farnam (2003) 82 Ark. App. 489…)
It is also well settled that Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) “does not allow intervention of right where existing parties adequately represent the interest of the proposed intervenor.” (See Heritage Vill. II Homeowners Ass'n v. Norman (2019) 443 P.3d 964…)
A motion to intervene “shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(c).) If leave to intervene is granted the intervenor shall separately file the complaint in intervention, answer in intervention, or…
With regards to mandatory intervention, under Code of Civ. Proc. S. 387(d)(1), “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. (B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to…”
It is also well settled that “F.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) permits a party to intervene only if they can demonstrate that they claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest." (See C.W.B. v. A.S. (2018) CO 8…)
Motions to intervene are governed by Practice Book § 9-18 and Conn. Gen Stat. § 52-107. Both sources confirm that a court must join an intervenor if it has an interest that will be affected by the court’s ruling: The court may determine the controversy as between the parties before it, if it can do so without prejudice to the rights of others; but, if a complete determination cannot be had without…
It is also well settled that "an attempt to intervene after final judgment is ordinarily looked upon with a jaundiced eye. The rationale which seems to underlie this general principle . . . is the assumption that allowing intervention after judgment will either (1) prejudice the rights of the existing parties to the litigation or (2) substantially interfere with the orderly processes of the court." (See See, e.g., McDonald v. E.J. Lavino Co. (1970) 430 F.2d 1065…)
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230 grants courts broad discretion when considering motions to intervene, and it provides as follows: “Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless…”
“Intervention must be timely, whether asserted as a right or as a matter of discretion.” (Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Quiroga-Saenz (2017) 343 Ga. App. 494, 498-99 citing Sta–Power Indus. v. Avant (1975) 134 Ga. App. 952…)
“Intervention statutes are remedial in nature and should be construed liberally ‘to allow a person to protect an interest jeopardized by pending litigation to which he is not a party or to avoid relitigation in another suit of issues which are being litigated in a pending suit.’” (Marshall v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 2017 Ill. App. 151482, 9 [Ill. App. Ct. 2017] citing City of Chicago v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1984) 127 Ill. App. 3d 140…)
“Motions to intervene as a matter of right are governed by Trial Rule 24(A).” (See State Farm Mut. v. Estep (2007) 873 N.E.2d 1021 …)
“Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the Commonwealth confers an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede…”
“Both MCR 2.209(A)(3), regarding intervention as of right, and MCR 2.209(B)(2), regarding permissive intervention require a ‘timely application’ for intervention.” (Foote Hosp. v. Public Health Dep't. (1995) 210 Mich. App. 516…)
It is well settled that “an order denying intervention of right, the subject of Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 24.01, is appealable.” (See Norman v. Refsland (1985) 370 N.W.2d 488.)
“Rule 52.12(a) permits intervention as a matter of right." in an action.” (See Howe v. Heartland Midwest, LLC (2020) 604 S.W.3d 774…)
“Motions to intervene are governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. sub. sec. 1A-1, Rule 24 (1999).” (See Taylor v. Abernethy (2002) 149 N.C. App. 263 …)
“An order denying a non-party's motion to intervene effectively concludes the proceedings for intervention and prevents the movant from becoming a party to the original action.” (See Wyatt v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc. (1994) 524 N.W.2d 579…)
“Any person or entity not initially a party , who has a statutory right to intervene or who will be substantially, specifically and directly affected by the outcome of a contested case, may on motion, seek leave to intervene” (See Gill v. Dept. of Banking (2008) 404 N.J. Super. 1…)
“Whether a party has standing to litigate a particular issue is a question of law, which we review de novo.” (Forest Guardians v. Powell, 2001-NMCA-028, ¶ 5, 130 N.M. 368, 24 P.3d 803.” Hicks-Lovelace v. Lovelace, No. 31,488, at *6 [N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2013].)
“Determinations on intervention lie within the district court's discretion.” (Nalder v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2020) 462 P.3d 677, 682 citing Lawler v. Ginochio (1978) 94 Nev. 623…)
A person may intervene as of right “when the representation of the person’s interests by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 1012(a)(2); Berkoski v. Bd. of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Southhampton, 67 A.D.3d 840, 843 [2nd Dept. 2009].) A person may also intervene as of right “when the action involves…”
“In reviewing the trial court's denial of appellants’ motion to intervene, [courts] apply an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (Peterman v. Pataskala (1997) 122 Ohio App. 3d 758, 761 citing Jamestown Village Condominium Owners Assn. v. Market Media Research, Inc. (1994) 96 Ohio App.3d 678…)
“We also will review rulings on motions to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) under a de novo standard.” (See In re Adoption of D.D.B (2005) 127 P.3d 638…)
“An order denying a petition to intervene is appealable under the federal statute if the petitioner had a right to intervene or if the denial was an abuse of the trial court's discretion.” (See Samuels v. Hubbard (1985) 71 Or. App. 481…)
“[T]he Rules of Civil Procedure governing intervention allow a party to intervene ‘[a]t any time during the pendency of an action’ provided certain conditions exist. (Pa. R.C.P. No. 2327.) In particular, intervention is permitted where a party could have been joined in the original action or where the determination may affect a legally enforceable interest of such person, whether or not such person may be bound by a judgment in the action.” (Fulton v. Bedford Cnty Tax Bureau (2008) 942 A.2d 240, 243 quoting and citing Pa. R.C.P. No. 2327(3), (4).)
“The timeliness of a motion to intervene is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial justice." (See Marteg Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Warwick (1981) 425 A.2d 1240, 1242; Adams v. McKee, C.A. No. PC-2011-2275, at *1 (R.I. Super. Mar. 5, 2020).)
An intervenor need not secure the trial court's permission to intervene; rather, a party opposing the intervention has the burden to challenge it by a motion to strike. (Harris Cty. v. Luna-Prudencio (2009) 294 S.W.3d 690, 699; see also…)
Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 2001.003(4) defines “party” as “a person or state agency named or admitted as a party.” (Coastal v. Pblc. Utility (2009) 294 S.W.3d 276, 292 citing 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 22.103(b).) Thus, “persons desiring to intervene must file a motion to intervene and be recognized as a party under…”
“Under Rule 24(a)(1), any person who has made a timely motion to intervene shall be permitted to do so when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene.” (See Agency of Transp. v. Timberlake Assocs. (2020) 239 A.3d 253…)
“Washington law clearly states that if a party files a motion to intervene prior to the commencement of trial, that motion is timely.” (See Am. Disc. Corp. v. Saratoga W. Inc. (1972) 81 Wn.2d 34, 43, 499 P.2d 869; Dolan v. King Cnty., No. 44982-0-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2014).)
It is also well settled that “the general rule is that motions for intervention made after entry of final judgment will be granted only after a strong showing of justification for failure to request intervention sooner.” (See C.L. v. Edson (1987) 140 Wis. 2d 168…)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
