Perry v. Schneider National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 27 motion to intervene, as further set out in order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/7/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
-TFM Perry v. Schneider National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION T A M M Y PERRY, P L A IN T IF F , v. S C H N E ID E R NATIONAL CARRIERS, I N C ., D EFEN D A N T. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 3:10-cv-455-MEF (W O -N o t Recommended for Publication)
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER M e a d w e s tv a c o Coated Board ("MCB") and its third-party workers' compensation a d m in is tra to r, Sedgwick CMS ("Sedgwick") filed a Motion to Intervene (Doc. # 27) on O c to b e r 29, 2010. This action was filed by Tammy Perry ("Perry"), a MCB employee, who w a s injured at work while loading a trailer operated by Schneider National Carriers, Inc. ("Schneider"). MCB and Sedgwick claim entitlement to subrogation for the expenses they in c u rre d as a result of Perry's injuries and paid to Perry pursuant to certain obligations under th e Alabama Workers' Compensation Act. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 4 (a ), MCB and Sedgwick seek to intervene in this action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, provides, in pertinent part, that: On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene w ho: (1 ) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2 ) claims an interest relating to the property or tra n s a c tio n that is the subject of the action, and is s o situated that disposing of the action may as a p r a c tic a l matter impair or impede the movant's
ability to protect its interest, unless existing p a rtie s adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (emphasis added). Here MCB and Sedgwick do not seek to intervene pursuant to an unconditional right to intervene established by federal statute. Instead, they contend that the Alabama Workers' C o m p e n s a tio n Act entitles them to intervene as a matter of right to protect their subrogation lie n . In so doing, they cite Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Young, 601 So. 2d 692 (Ala. 1992). In that case, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act c o n s titu te d a state statute which conferred an unconditional right to intervene as required by A la b a m a Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1). Id. at 962-63. Such a holding in no way s u p p o rts a conclusion that MCB and Sedgwick have an unconditional right to intervene e s ta b lis h e d by a federal statute as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1). Moreover, while MCB and Sedgwick contend that they have an interest in this action, th e y fail to also demonstrate that their interest in this action is so situated that disposing of th e action may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect their interest. Accordingly, they have not adequately demonstrated that they are entitled to intervene p u rs u a n t to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Because the Court finds no merit to their contention that they should be allowed to in te rv e n e as of right in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), the C o u rt is compelled to deny this motion. Although Schneider did not oppose this intervention, it persists in its contention that MCB and Sedgwick have no standing to bring suit, either in 2
this action as intervenors or in the other action which they have filed, pursuant to the A la b a m a Workers' Compensation Act because Perry has filed suit. Despite the lack of clear o p p o sitio n to the motion, the Court is compelled to follow the laws as written. The p ro v is io n s of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon which MCB and Sedgwick rely s im p ly do not support the relief they request. For this reason, the Motion to Intervene (Doc. # 27) is DENIED. DONE this the 7 day of December, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?