1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ZAMUDIO, ET AL., No. 2:16-cv-02693-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE BY LIBERTY INSURANCE 14 FMC CORPORATION, a Delaware CORPORATION Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 15 inclusive 16 Defendants, 17
18 19 This matter is before the Court on Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor, Liberty Insurance 20 Corporation’s (“Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor”) motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and in the alternative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). (ECF No. 22 34 at 2, 4.) No oppositions to this motion have been filed. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs Raul and Soledad Zamudio (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 3 complaint for personal injury damages against FMC Corporation (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) 4 Plaintiffs brought six causes of action against Defendant arising from a workplace incident that 5 occurred on July 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) During Raul Zamudio’s employment at H.J. Heinz 6 Company dba Escalon Premier Brands (“Heinz”), he suffered a serious injury while cleaning a 7 machine he alleges was defectively manufactured by Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs 8 allege the machine started suddenly while in the off position and caused bi-lateral amputation to 9 both of Raul Zamudio’s arms. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s defective product 10 and/or negligence caused the injury. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) As a result of the injury, Raul Zamudio 11 became unable to perform his job, and Plaintiffs seek recovery for personal injuries relating to the 12 alleged product defect, breach of express warranty, and loss of consortium. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 13 On April 24, 2018, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor filed the instant motion seeking 14 intervention of right or permissive intervention. (ECF No. 34.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor is 15 an insurance company that serves as the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for Heinz. 16 (ECF No. 34 at 10, ¶ 3.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor has paid workers’ compensation benefits 17 to or on behalf of Plaintiff Raul Zamudio as a result of the incident, and is pursuing a subrogation 18 claim based on those benefits. (See ECF No. 34 at 6.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims it has 19 cognizable interest that would be impaired or impeded by way of disposition of Plaintiff’s action, 20 and the existing parties do not adequately represent that interest. (ECF No. 34 at 6.) Therefore, 21 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor argues it is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Federal 22 Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). (ECF No. 34 at 6.) 23 II. STANDARD OF LAW 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), on timely motion, intervention is a 25 matter of right when the moving party is one who “claims an interest relating to the property or 26 transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a 27 practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 28 parties adequately represent that interest.” Rule 24(a)(2). 1 Courts apply a “four-part test” to determine whether a moving party may intervene as a 2 matter of right: “(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a significantly 3 protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) 4 the applicant must be so situated that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or 5 impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately 6 represented by the parties to the action.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 7 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006); Rule 24(b). 8 “Each of these four requirements must be satisfied to support a right to intervene.” 9 Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 10 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003)). In evaluating whether these requirements are met, courts “are 11 guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations.” Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 12 919 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, courts generally “construe [the Rule] broadly in favor of proposed 13 intervenors.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 This case arises out an incident that occurred at Plaintiff Raul Zamudio’s place of 16 employment by an alleged defective product of Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) As the workers’ 17 compensation carrier for Heinz, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims to have a significantly 18 protectable interest in the matter due to the workers’ compensation benefits it has paid to Plaintiff 19 Raul Zamudio. (ECF No. 34 at 3–4.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor seeks a subrogation claim 20 against Defendant and argues its interests are not properly represented by existing parties. (ECF 21 No. 34. at 5.) Given the factual relatedness of the claims by Plaintiffs and Proposed Plaintiff 22 Intervenor, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor further argues an adverse judgment in the present case 23 would inhibit its ability to recover from Defendant. (See ECF No. 34 at 6–7.) The Court 24 addresses each of the four Rule 24(a)(2) factors in turn. 25 A. Timeliness of Motion 26 “Timeliness is ‘the threshold requirement’ for intervention as of right.” League of United 27 Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). A motion is generally 28 considered timely when “made at an early stage of the proceedings, the parties would not have 1 suffered from the grant of intervention at that early stage, and intervention would not cause 2 disruption or delay in the proceedings.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 3 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). In determining whether a motion is timely, courts consider: 4 (1) the stage of the proceeding; (2) any prejudice to the other parties; and (3) the reason for and 5 length of any delay. Orange Cty. v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 With regard to the stage of the proceeding prong, the case is in the pretrial stage and as of 7 the filing of Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s motion (ECF No. 34), no trial date had been set. As 8 to the prejudice of other parties, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor contends that its claim will not 9 “expand the scope of discovery, require additional investigation, or otherwise cause delay in the 10 underlying action.” (ECF No. 34 at 10, ¶ 9.) The Court agrees that Proposed Plaintiff’s 11 Intervention is unlikely to prejudice the existing parties given the factual relatedness of the 12 claims. Further, existing parties have not filed opposition to Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s 13 intervention that indicate any potential prejudice against them. Finally, as to the reason for and 14 length of any delay, Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 14, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 15 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor did not file the present motion until April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) 16 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims its present motion was filed “as soon as practicable.” (ECF 17 No. 34 at 3.) In the absence of opposition by the existing parties and Proposed Plaintiff 18 Intervenor’s assertion that filing occurred as soon as practicable, the Court finds this prong of the 19 timeliness analysis has been met.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ZAMUDIO, ET AL., No. 2:16-cv-02693-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE BY LIBERTY INSURANCE 14 FMC CORPORATION, a Delaware CORPORATION Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 15 inclusive 16 Defendants, 17
18 19 This matter is before the Court on Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor, Liberty Insurance 20 Corporation’s (“Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor”) motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and in the alternative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). (ECF No. 22 34 at 2, 4.) No oppositions to this motion have been filed. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs Raul and Soledad Zamudio (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 3 complaint for personal injury damages against FMC Corporation (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) 4 Plaintiffs brought six causes of action against Defendant arising from a workplace incident that 5 occurred on July 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) During Raul Zamudio’s employment at H.J. Heinz 6 Company dba Escalon Premier Brands (“Heinz”), he suffered a serious injury while cleaning a 7 machine he alleges was defectively manufactured by Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs 8 allege the machine started suddenly while in the off position and caused bi-lateral amputation to 9 both of Raul Zamudio’s arms. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s defective product 10 and/or negligence caused the injury. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) As a result of the injury, Raul Zamudio 11 became unable to perform his job, and Plaintiffs seek recovery for personal injuries relating to the 12 alleged product defect, breach of express warranty, and loss of consortium. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 13 On April 24, 2018, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor filed the instant motion seeking 14 intervention of right or permissive intervention. (ECF No. 34.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor is 15 an insurance company that serves as the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for Heinz. 16 (ECF No. 34 at 10, ¶ 3.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor has paid workers’ compensation benefits 17 to or on behalf of Plaintiff Raul Zamudio as a result of the incident, and is pursuing a subrogation 18 claim based on those benefits. (See ECF No. 34 at 6.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims it has 19 cognizable interest that would be impaired or impeded by way of disposition of Plaintiff’s action, 20 and the existing parties do not adequately represent that interest. (ECF No. 34 at 6.) Therefore, 21 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor argues it is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Federal 22 Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). (ECF No. 34 at 6.) 23 II. STANDARD OF LAW 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), on timely motion, intervention is a 25 matter of right when the moving party is one who “claims an interest relating to the property or 26 transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a 27 practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 28 parties adequately represent that interest.” Rule 24(a)(2). 1 Courts apply a “four-part test” to determine whether a moving party may intervene as a 2 matter of right: “(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a significantly 3 protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) 4 the applicant must be so situated that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or 5 impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately 6 represented by the parties to the action.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 7 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006); Rule 24(b). 8 “Each of these four requirements must be satisfied to support a right to intervene.” 9 Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 10 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003)). In evaluating whether these requirements are met, courts “are 11 guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations.” Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 12 919 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, courts generally “construe [the Rule] broadly in favor of proposed 13 intervenors.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 This case arises out an incident that occurred at Plaintiff Raul Zamudio’s place of 16 employment by an alleged defective product of Defendant. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) As the workers’ 17 compensation carrier for Heinz, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims to have a significantly 18 protectable interest in the matter due to the workers’ compensation benefits it has paid to Plaintiff 19 Raul Zamudio. (ECF No. 34 at 3–4.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor seeks a subrogation claim 20 against Defendant and argues its interests are not properly represented by existing parties. (ECF 21 No. 34. at 5.) Given the factual relatedness of the claims by Plaintiffs and Proposed Plaintiff 22 Intervenor, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor further argues an adverse judgment in the present case 23 would inhibit its ability to recover from Defendant. (See ECF No. 34 at 6–7.) The Court 24 addresses each of the four Rule 24(a)(2) factors in turn. 25 A. Timeliness of Motion 26 “Timeliness is ‘the threshold requirement’ for intervention as of right.” League of United 27 Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). A motion is generally 28 considered timely when “made at an early stage of the proceedings, the parties would not have 1 suffered from the grant of intervention at that early stage, and intervention would not cause 2 disruption or delay in the proceedings.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 3 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). In determining whether a motion is timely, courts consider: 4 (1) the stage of the proceeding; (2) any prejudice to the other parties; and (3) the reason for and 5 length of any delay. Orange Cty. v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 With regard to the stage of the proceeding prong, the case is in the pretrial stage and as of 7 the filing of Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s motion (ECF No. 34), no trial date had been set. As 8 to the prejudice of other parties, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor contends that its claim will not 9 “expand the scope of discovery, require additional investigation, or otherwise cause delay in the 10 underlying action.” (ECF No. 34 at 10, ¶ 9.) The Court agrees that Proposed Plaintiff’s 11 Intervention is unlikely to prejudice the existing parties given the factual relatedness of the 12 claims. Further, existing parties have not filed opposition to Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s 13 intervention that indicate any potential prejudice against them. Finally, as to the reason for and 14 length of any delay, Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 14, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 15 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor did not file the present motion until April 25, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) 16 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor claims its present motion was filed “as soon as practicable.” (ECF 17 No. 34 at 3.) In the absence of opposition by the existing parties and Proposed Plaintiff 18 Intervenor’s assertion that filing occurred as soon as practicable, the Court finds this prong of the 19 timeliness analysis has been met. 20 Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion to intervene was timely filed within the 21 meaning of Rule 24. 22 B. Significant Protectable Interest 23 An intervenor has a “significant protectable interest” when (1) it asserts an interest that is 24 protected by law, and (2) there is a “relationship” between the legally protected interest and the 25 plaintiff’s claims. See State ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2006). 26 Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor argues it has a significant protectable interest through its 27 payment of workers’ compensation benefits and pursuant to the California Labor Code and 28 California Insurance Code. (ECF No. 34 at 4.) Specifically, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor cites 1 to California Labor Code § 3852, which gives employers a right to a claim in the suit of an 2 employee if the employer paid workers’ compensation to the employee as a result of injury 3 caused by the defendant’s negligence. Here, the employer in question is Heinz. California 4 Insurance Code § 11662 further provides that an insurer providing insurance against liability to an 5 employer is subrogated to the rights of the employer to recover losses arising out of payment of 6 any compensation for which the employer is liable. As the workers’ compensation insurance 7 provider to Heinz, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor retains an interest that is protected by law. 8 An intervenor “generally satisfies the ‘relationship’ requirement only if the resolution of 9 the plaintiff’s claims will affect the [intervenor.]” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 410 (9th 10 Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s causes of action both arise from the 11 same workplace incident. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10; ECF No. 34 at 1.) Judgment in favor of Defendant in 12 this case will affect Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s claim against Defendant. The Court finds the 13 requisite relationship exists between the Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s legally protected interest 14 and Plaintiffs’ claims. 15 Accordingly, the Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor has satisfied its showing of a protectable 16 interest. 17 C. Disposition of Action May Impair or Impede Ability to Protect Interest 18 “If an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination 19 made in an action, [the absentee] should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene.” Sw. Ctr. for 20 Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rule 24 advisory 21 committee’s notes). Here, judgment in favor of Defendant in this case will necessarily impair or 22 impede Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s ability to protect its own interests and pursue claims 23 against Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds this factor to be adequately satisfied. 24 D. No Existing Adequate Representation 25 A proposed intervenor is adequately represented when “(1) the interests of the existing 26 parties are such that they would undoubtedly make all of the non-party’s arguments; (2) the 27 existing parties are capable of and willing to make such arguments; and (3) the non-party would 28 offer no necessary element to the proceeding that existing parties would neglect.” Sw. Ctr. for 1 Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1152, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 1998). 2 The burden of showing inadequate representation is “minimal” and Proposed Plaintiff 3 Intervenor need only demonstrate “that representation of its interests ‘may be’ inadequate.” 4 Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898 (quoting Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086). Here, Proposed 5 Plaintiff Intervenor has a subrogation claim based on workers’ compensation benefits paid to 6 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 34 at 6.) Plaintiffs, in their action, pursue personal injury causes of action. 7 (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor argues that although the claims arise from the 8 same event, the elements differ, and Plaintiffs will not make all of Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s 9 arguments. (ECF No. 34 at 6.) The Court agrees and finds that Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor has 10 met its burden of showing inadequate representation. Therefore, this factor has been satisfied. 11 As all four factors have been met, intervention as a right under Rule 24(a)(2) is 12 appropriate. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, Proposed Plaintiff Intervenor’s motion to intervene (ECF 15 No. 34) is GRANTED. 16 17 Dated: September 5, 2019 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28