United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma
AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS, DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE, WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, and ALEX CASIANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
MERACORD, INC., Defendant, and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND and PLATT RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors.
ORDER DENYING INTEVENORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor Defendants Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and Platte River Insurance Company’s (“Intervenors”) motion to intervene (Dkt. 264). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 24, 2012, Plaintiffs Marie Johnson-Peredo, Dinah Canada, and Robert Hewson filed a class action complaint against Defendant Meracord, LLC, (“Meracord”) and its CEO, Linda Remsberg. Dkt. 1.
On March 2, 2015, after an appeal and a consolidation, Plaintiffs Alex Casiano, Donte Cheeks, Erma Sue Clyatt, Wahab Ekunsumi, Arthur Fuller, Karen Hea, Robert Hewson, Deborah Horton, Marie Johnson-Peredo, Amy Joyce, Robert Joyce, Dawn Meade, Richard Pierce, and Amrish Rajagopalan (“Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint against Meracord. Dkt. 251. In relevant part, Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class of “[a]ll persons in a Surety State who established an account with Meracord LLC” during defined “Bond Periods.” Id., ¶ 182–183.
On March 26, 2015, Intervenors filed the instant motion. Dkt. 264. On April 6, 2014, Plaintiffs responded (Dkt. 273) and voluntarily dismissed Count IX in their complaint (Dkt. 275). On April 10, 2015, Intervenors replied. Dkt. 276.
Intervenors request that the Court allow them to intervene either as a matter of right or under principles of permissive intervention.
A. Matter of Right
“The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to intervene as a matter of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), the applicant must establish that:
(1) the applicant’s motion is timely; (2) the applicant has asserted an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without intervention the disposition may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.
Orange Cnty. v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986).
Three factors should be evaluated to determine whether a motion to intervene is timely: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” Unite ...