Delta Towing, LLC

Filing 79

ORDER denying 47 Motion to Intervene as set out in order. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/2/2015. (cmj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF DELTA TOWING,
LLC, AS OWNER OF THE M/V DELTA
AMBER, AND DELTA MARINE SERVICE,
INC., AS PURPORTED OWNER,
BROKER, CHARTERER, OR PRO HAC
VICE OWNER OF THE M/V DELTA
AMBER, FOR EXONERATION FROM
OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MIKE HOOKS, INC., and
GULF COAST MARINE, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF,
V.
DELTA TOWING, LLC and
DELTA MARINE SERVICES, INC.
DEFENDANTS.
BILLY LEE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIKE HOOKS, INC., OWNER OF THE
M/V NICHOLAS, in personam.
DEFENDANT.
IN THE MATTER OF MIKE HOOKS,
INC., AS OWNER OF THE M/V
NICHOLAS, PETITIONING FOR
EXONERATION FROM, OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00128-KD-M

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00136-KD-N

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00295-KD-N

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00330-KD-B

ORDER
This action is before the Court on Gulf Coast Marine, LLC’s (“Gulf Coast Marine”) motion
to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). (Doc. 47). This litigation arises out of the capsizing
and sinking of the dredge tender NICHOLAS, and the tug DELTA AMBER. The NICHOLAS was

1

owned and operated by Mike Hooks, Inc., and the DELTA AMBER was owned and operated by
Delta Towing, LLC and Delta Marine Services, Inc.
Gulf Coast Marine seeks to intervene in Billy Lee v. Mike Hooks, Inc., Owner of the M/V
NICHOLAS, in personam, 15-CV-00295-KD-N (S.D. Ala. 2015), which was previously consolidated
with several other related cases. (See Doc. 50). Billy Lee is the sole plaintiff, and Mike Hooks, Inc. is
the sole defendant in 15-CV-00295-KD-N. (Doc. 30 at 1). Movant Gulf Coast Marine, identifies
itself as the issuer of a policy of Hull and Protection and Indemnity Insurance to Defendant Mike
Hooks, Inc. (Doc. 47 at 1).
Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a third party moving for
intervention of right show: (1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he has an interest relating to
the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that disposition of
the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) his
interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit. Huff v. Comm'r of IRS, 743
F.3d 790, 795 (11th Cir. 2014)(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Even if Gulf Coast Marine has a legally recognizable interest, it has not established that its
“interest” is not adequately represented by the Defendant Mike Hooks, Inc. Mike Hooks, Inc. and
Gulf Coast Marine’s interests are identical: to defend against Mike Hooks, Inc.’s potential liability in
this matter. As the Middle District of Alabama has explained:
The requirement that an intervenor not be adequately represented by existing parties
“is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’
inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.”
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10, 92 S.Ct. 630, 636 n. 10,
30 L.Ed.2d 686 (1972). “However ‘minimal’ this burden may be, it cannot be treated
as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule.” Bush, 740 F.2d
at 355. “ ‘When the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a
party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented,
against which the petitioner must demonstrate adversity of interest, collusion, or
nonfeasance.’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Electric
Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976)) (intervening citations omitted). The party
seeking intervention must “contribute” something to the “lawsuit beyond underlining
the positions already taken” by the current parties. Bush, 740 F.2d at 357.

2

Wyatt By & Through Rawlins v. Hanan, 170 F.R.D. 189, 192 (M.D. Ala. 1995). Further, the Eleventh
Circuit has held:
We will find that representation is adequate if no collusion is shown between the
representative and an opposing party, if the representative does not have or represent
an interest adverse to the proposed intervenor, and if the representative does not fail
in fulfillment of his duty…This court will presume that a proposed intervenor’s
interest is adequately represented when an existing party pursues the same ultimate
objective as the party seeking intervention.
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 215 (11th Cir.
1993)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Accordingly, as Gulf Coast Marine has not made a showing that any interest it may have is
not adequately represented by current Defendant Mike Hooks, Inc., the motion to intervene (Doc. 47)
is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3