United States District Court, D. North Dakota
Target Logistics Management, LLC, and Lodging Solutions - Williston, LLC, Plaintiffs,
City of Williston, North Dakota, Defendant, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenor,
Weatherford U.S., L.P Movant for Intervention.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE
L. Hovland, United States District Court Chief Judge
the Court is a motion to intervene filed by Weatherford U.S.,
L.P, (Weatherford) on July 31, 2017. See Docket No.
84. The Defendant, City of Williston, filed a response to the
motion on August 14, 2017. See Docket No. 87.
Weatherford filed a reply brief on August 21, 2017.
See Docket No. 89. No response was filed by either
Plaintiffs Target Logistics and Lodgings Solutions or
Intervenor Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is granted.
cases arises from a declaratory judgment action over a
dispute of the constitutionality of a City of Williston
ordinances, Ordinance 1026 and 1050, repealing the Special
Permitted Use of “man camps” or “crew
camps” during the recent oil boom in western North
Dakota. The complaint in this case was filed on April 14,
2016. See Docket No. 1. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiffs
Target Logistics and Lodging Solutions sought a preliminary
injunction enjoining Ordinance 1026. See Docket No.
12. The Court enjoined Ordiance 1026 on June 21, 2016.
See Docket No. 42. On June 22, 2016, the Court
granted Halliburton's motion to intervene. See
Docket No. 43. On the same day, the Court also ordered the
parties, including Halliburton, to participate in a mandatory
early settlement conference. See Docket No. 44.
Halliburton's interveror complaint was filed on June 28,
2016 and the City of Williston's answer was filed on July
19, 2016. See Docket Nos. 48 and 49.
August of 2016, the City of Willison passed Ordinance 1050,
which prompted a motion to file an amended complaint and a
motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. See
Docket Nos. 56, and 59. Both motions were granted. The
preliminary injunction was vacated on March 9, 2017.
See Docket No. 80. On May 1, 2017, the parties filed
a stipulation to stay the matter for six months. See
Docket No. 81. The stipulation was adopted and the case was
stayed pending further order of the court on May 23, 2017.
See Docket No. 83. Weatherfords motion to intervene
was filed on July 31, 2017. See Docket No. 84.
asserts it is entitled to intervention as a matter of right
pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) or in the alternative, permissive
intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b).
onset, Weatherford asserts that its motion to intervene is
timely. The City of Williston responds that Weatherford's
motion is untimely and would prejudice it if Weatherford were
allowed to intervene. To determine whether a motion to
intervene is timely, courts consider “(1) the extent
the litigation has progressed at the time of the motion to
intervene; (2) the prospective intervenor's knowledge of
the litigation; (3) the reason for the dely in seeking
intervention; and (4) whether the delay in seeking
intervention may prejudice the existing parties.”
In re Wholesale Grocery Prod. Antitrust Litig., 849
F.3d 761, 766-67 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations marks
omitted). The Court will address each factor in turn.
although the case has been pending since April of 2016, the
only activity of substance in the case has been the issuance
and vacation of the preliminary injunction. The parties
jointly agreed to stay all deadlines in the matter in May of
2017. Discovery has not been completed and no dispositve
motions have been filed. The Court finds this factor favors
the assertions regarding factors two and three, when
Weatherford knew of the litigation and it's reasons for
delay in seeking intervention, are closely related.
Weatherford admits it knew of the litigation “not long
after it was filed.” See Docket No. 84.
Weatherford asserts that due to losses as a result of other
litigation, Weatherford now “chooses to intervene in
this matter.” See Docket No. 84. The Court
finds these factors weigh against intervention.
Weatherford asserts that the City of Williston has not been
prejudiced by the delay in seeking intervention, noting that
Weatherford's claims are nearly identical to those of the
current plaintiffs; the case has been stayed; and that any
ongoing settlement negotiations cannot be the basis for a
finding of prejudice. The City of Williston contends that
intervention would prejudice the existing parties because the
City of Williston believes a settlement is
“imminent” with the existing Plaintiffs. However,
that was fourth months ago and the case has not settled. The
City of Williston asserts that Weatherford failed to respond
to attempts to discuss potential resolution. Eighth Circuit
case law clearly states that ongoing settlement negotiations
do not automatically create prejudice to the parties if
another party seeks to intervene. Mille Lacs Bank of
Chippewa Indians v. State of Minn., 989 F.2d 994, 999
(8th Cir. 1993). It is worth noting that none of the other
plaintiffs, Target Logistics, Lodging Solution, or
Halliburton Energy Services, objected to Weatherford's
motion to intervene.
although Weatherford delayed in filing its motion to
interview, the underlying litigation had not progressed
significantly by the time they moved to intervene and the
delay in seeking intervention did not prejudice the existing
parties. Accordingly, the Court finds that Weatherford's
motion to intervene is timely.
Intervention of Right ...