Filimowicz v. Explorer Transport Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00283
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

WIESLAW FILIMOWICZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-00283-MTS ) EXPLORER TRANSPORT INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on proposed Plaintiff-in-Intervention LM General Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Intervene. Doc. [46]. Proposed Plaintiff-in- Intervention has disregarded multiple rules in its attempt to intervene here. First, it failed to include a Memorandum in Support of its Motion. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(A). Next, it failed to accompany its Motion with “a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). It also failed to file a disclosure statement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1; accord E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.09. These failures have left the Court unable to determine whether it even would have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter if intervention were allowed, something proposed Plaintiff-in-Intervention does not seem even to have considered. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Helena Marine Serv., Inc., 884 F.2d 391, 393 (8th Cir. 1989) (discussing subject matter jurisdiction considerations in the context of permissive intervention); Contimortgage Corp. v. Anglezis, 173 F. App’x 458, 464 (7th Cir. 2006) (same); Hensley v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 113 F.4th 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2024) (discussing subject matter jurisdiction considerations in the context of intervention as of right of indispensable parties); see also Yorkshire P’ship, Ltd. v. Pac. Cap. Partners, 154 F.R.D. 141, 142 (M.D. La. 1993) (court lacked jurisdiction over state-law claims of party seeking to intervene as plaintiff where the intervenor and the plaintiff in the main action were nondiverse (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b))). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that proposed Plaintiff-in-Intervention LM General Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Intervene, Doc. [46], is DENIED without prejudice. Proposed Plaintiff-in-Intervention has through Monday, December 16, 2024, to file an Amended Motion to Intervene addressing the points raised herein. Failure to do so timely may result in the summary denial of any later motion. *

Dated this Sth day of December 2024. ) | oo yl UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* Cf Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b)(1) (requiring motions to intervene to be “timely”). _2-