Thompson v. Wolverine Services, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARK THOMPSON, Case No. 20-cv-08865-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. INTERVENE

10 WOLVERINE SERVICES, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 16 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Federal Express Corporation moves to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) in this negligence case brought by Plaintiff Mark Thompson, one of its 16 drivers. ECF No. 16. No opposition has been received. The Court finds this matter suitable for 17 disposition without oral argument and VACATES the April 1, 2021 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7- 18 1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, 19 the Court GRANTS FedEx’s motion for the following reasons. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 On the morning of December 20, 2018, Thompson was delivering a package to USDA 22 Westerb Regional Research Center (“ARS”), located at 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, California. 23 Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 1. Thompson got out of his truck with the delivery item and was handing it 24 over to an ARS employee across the top of a barrier gate when the gate suddenly activated. Id. ¶¶ 25 15-17. The barrier gate rose abruptly and struck Thompson in the head and face. Id. ¶ 17. ARS 26 has claimed that the gate was being maintained by Defendant Wolverine Services, LLC. Id. ¶ 18. 27 Thompson filed this case on December 14, 2020, alleging one claim of negligence. As of 1 at 2. 2 III. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Rule 24(b) governs permissive intervention. Rule 24(b)(1)(B) “requires (1) an 4 independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and 5 fact between the movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Freedom from Religion Found., 6 Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Where litigants timely 7 intervene, courts consider several factors in deciding whether to permit intervention, including:

8 the nature and extent of the intervenors' interest, their standing to raise relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, and its 9 probable relation to the merits of the case[,] whether changes have occurred in the litigation so that intervention that was once denied 10 should be reexamined, whether the intervenors' interests are adequately represented by other parties, whether intervention will 11 prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the 12 underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented. 13 14 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Spangler v. Pasadena City 15 Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)). District courts have “broad discretion to make 16 this determination.” Id. 17 IV. DISCUSSION 18 The Court finds permissive intervention appropriate here. As to jurisdiction, FedEx is a 19 Delaware corporation, Thompson is a resident of California, and Wolverine is an Alaska LLC with 20 its principal place of business in Colorado. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2; Javan Decl. ¶ 3-4 & Ex. A, ECF No. 21 16-1. Further, FedEx alleges it has already paid $112,088.81 in benefits as a result of Thompson’s 22 injury. Thus, FedEx has established an independent ground for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 23 (A district court has diversity jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 24 value of $75,000 . . . and is between citizens of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens 25 or subjects of a foreign state.”). 26 FedEx’s motion is also timely. In assessing timeliness, courts must consider three factors: 27 “the stage of the proceedings, the prejudice to existing parties, and the length of and reason for the 1 case is in its preliminary stages, with Wolverine having just filed its answer and the initial case 2 |} management conference two months away. Further, the basis for FedEx’s intervention is under 3 || the California Labor Code, and section 3853 of the Labor Code provides: “If the action is brought 4 || by either the employer or employee, the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as 5 || party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently.” 6 Finally, FedEx has established that it shares a common question of law or fact because 7 Thompson verifies that at the time of his injury he was acting in the course and scope of his 8 || employment with “Federal Express Corporation.” Compl. § 12. 9 Turning to the factors articulated in Perry, intervention would not unduly delay or 10 || otherwise prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. Most important, it is clear that 11 “the nature and extent of [FedEx’s] interest” is substantial, given that Thompson was acting as its 12 || employee, as well as its past and likely continued benefits payments to, or on behalf of, 13 Thompson. See Perry, 630 F.3d at 905. Given this analysis, the Court finds that FedEx’s 14 || participation will likely contribute “to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions 15 || presented.” See id. 16 V. CONCLUSION 3 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS FedEx’s motion. Federal Express S 18 || Corporation shall file its complaint-in-intervention forthwith. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: March 4, 2021 22 7 LU \ : Lj, □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28