United States District Court, D. North Dakota
United Financial Casualty Company, a California Corporation, Plaintiff,
Fila-Mar Energy Services, LLC, Douglas Landis, Doman Farms Logistics, LLC, Doman Farms, and Normarco, Inc. d/b/a Doman Farms, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE
R. Hochhalter, United States District Judge.
the court is a Motion to Intervene filed by Great West
Casualty Company ("Great West") on May 23, 2019.
Great West seeks to intervene in this matter as a matter of
right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). Alternatively, it seeks
to intervene on a permissive basis pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
29, 2019, Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Corporation
("United Financial") responded that it does not
oppose Great West's motion. The defendants on whose
behalf counsel has entered an appearance and filed an answer
have yet to respond to Great West's motion. See D. N.D
Civ. L.R. 7 .1 (F) ("An adverse party's failure to
serve and file a response to a motion may be deemed an
admission that the motion is well
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the
court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal
(2) claims an interest relating to the propeliy or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). It further provides that the court may
permit anyone to intervene who: "(A) is given a
conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B)
has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a
common question of law or fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that Rule
24 is to be construed liberally in favor of intervention,
which the court has described as serving the interest of the
judicial system by resolving all related controversies in a
single action. See Kinetic Leasing. Inc. v. Nelson,
Case No. 3:16-3cv-99, 2016 WL 8737876, at *2 (D.N.D. Sept.
22, 2016) (citing S. Dakota ex rel Barnett v. US. Dep-t
of Interior, 317 F .3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2003), and
Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger
Assocs., Inc., 60F.3d 1304.1307-08) (8th Cir. 1995)).
Thus, "any doubts as to'the propriety of permitting
intervention should be resolved in favor of allowing
it.'" Target Logistics Mgmt., LLC v. City of
Williston, No. 1:16-cv-076, 2017 WL 6459800, at *3 (D.
N.D. Dec. 18, 2017) (quoting Sierra Club v.
Robertson, 960 F.2d 83, 86 (8th Cir. 1992)).
considering a motion to intervene, the court must assess the
motion in a light most favorable to the prospective
intervenor. Id., at 2 (citing Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. EPA, 759 F.3d 969, 973-75
(8th Cir. 2014)). The court must also accept the allegations
of the prospective intervene as true. Id.
the court finds that Great West clearly has an interest in
the subject matter of the litigation. Great West's claims
share common questions of law and/or fact with those being
asserted by United Financial. Second, the court finds that
Great West's interests may be impaired by the disposition
of the case. For example, a determination regarding the
validity of a haul agreement at issue in this case may affect
United Financial's and Great West's respective
coverage obligations. Third, the court finds that Great West
has shown its interests are not adequately represented by the
existing parties and Great West asserts it will proceed with
filing an action of its own if it is not permitted to
intervene. Finally, the court concludes that judicial economy
is best served by resolving these related matters in a single
Great West has satisfied Rule 24(a)(2)' s requirements
and demonstrated that it may intervene as a matter of right.
Accordingly, Great West's motion (Doc. No. 3) is
GRANTED. Great West shall file its Complaint
for Declaratory Relief by July 12, 2019.
IS SO ORDERED.
 On May 29, 2019, counsel filed an
answer on behalf of Defendants Domain Farm Logistics, LLC,
Doman Forms, and Nomarco, Inc. (Doc. No.10). No one has yet
to enter anappearance and file answers on behalf of