Cooke et al v. Colorado City, Town of et al
Filing
456
ORDER denying 432 Motion to Intervene filed by St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and the Travelers Indemnity Company. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/19/13.(SJF)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Ronald Cooke and Jinjer Cooke, husband
and wife,
10
13
14
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
No. CV-10-08105-PCT-JAT
The State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas C.
Horne, the Attorney General; and the Civil
Rights Division of the Arizona Department
of Law,
15
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
16
17
18
19
20
21
v.
Town of Colorado City, Arizona; City of
Hildale, Utah; Hildale-Colorado City
Utilities (Hildale-Colorado City Power,
Water, Sewer and gas Department and
Twin City Water Authority); Twin City
Power,
22
Defendants.
23
24
Pending before the Court is St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company’s and the
25
Travelers Indemnity Company’s (collectively, “Travelers”) Motion to Intervene pursuant
26
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, alternatively, 24(b). (Doc. 432).
27
I.
BACKGROUND
28
Travelers seeks to intervene as a matter of right or permissively for the purpose of
1
submitting special interrogatories and special verdict forms to the jury.
2
Travelers issued insurance policies to Defendant Town of Colorado City in
3
February 2009, February 2010, and February 2011. On June 24, 2010, Plaintiffs Ronald
4
and Jinjer Cooke (the “Cookes”) filed a Complaint against the Town of Colorado City
5
and the City of Hildale, Hildale-Colorado City Utilities, and Twin City Power
6
(collectively, the “Hildale Defendants”) alleging, among other things, violations of the
7
federal and Arizona Fair Housing Acts. (Doc. 1). On December 20, 2010, after receiving
8
notice of the Cookes’ Complaint against the Town of Colorado City, Travelers sent a
9
reservation of rights letter (the “ROR”) to the Town of Colorado City. (Doc. 444-1). In
10
the ROR, Travelers acknowledged that it received notice of the Cookes’ Complaint on
11
October 26, 2009. (Id. at 2).
12
In February 2013, the Court ruled on the Parties’ cross-motions for summary
13
judgment. (See Doc. 318). Thereafter, on June 25, 2013, the Court held a Final Pretrial
14
Conference. (Doc. 433). At the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court ruled on motions in
15
limine and set trial for January 28, 2014. (Id.). In its Order setting the Final Pretrial
16
Conference, the Court set the deadline for submitting a joint list of jury instructions,
17
verdict forms, and proposed voir dire as June 17, 2013. (Doc. 434). The Parties timely
18
submitted their joint proposed jury instructions on June 17, 2013 (Doc. 415), their
19
proposed verdict forms on June 17, 2013 (Doc. 414; Doc. 410), and joint proposed voir
20
dire on June 17, 2013. (Doc. 416). Travelers filed its motion to intervene on June 24,
21
2013, the day before the Final Pretrial Conference. (Doc. 432). The Cookes, the State of
22
Arizona (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the Town of Colorado City, and the Hildale
23
Defendants oppose Travelers’ motion to intervene. (See Doc. 444; Doc. 446).
24
II.
25
Travelers moves to intervene to be permitted to submit special interrogatories
26
and/or special verdict forms to the jury that identify the basis for the jury’s verdict. In its
27
motion to intervene, Travelers claims that intervention will efficiently settle coverage
28
issues if the jury returns a verdict for the Plaintiffs. (Doc. 432).
ANALYSIS
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A.
INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) relevantly states:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who . . . claims an interest relating to the property 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 that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). To be entitled to intervention as of right, the applicant must
show that: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a
“significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action; (3) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or
impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the existing parties do not
adequately represent the applicant’s interest.
League of United Latin Am. Citizens
(LULAC) v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Nw. Forest Res. Council
v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 1996)). Under Rule 24(a), the first factor,
timeliness, is a threshold requirement. Id. (citing United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576,
588 (9th Cir. 1990)). As a result, if the Court finds that the applicant’s motion to
intervene is not timely, the Court “need not reach any of the remaining elements of Rule
24.” Id. To determine whether a motion to intervene is timely, the Court must consider:
“(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks intervention; (2) the
prejudice to the other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of delay.” Id.
Travelers’ motion to intervene is untimely. On December 20, 2010, Travelers sent
the ROR to the Town Manager of the Town of Colorado City. Travelers argues there
was no reason for it to intervene at the time it received notice of the Cookes’ Complaint
because the only purpose for its intervention is to submit special interrogatories to the
jury. This purpose is undermined by the legitimate arguments of the Parties that, if
Travelers had intervened sooner, the Parties would have sought discovery related to the
three insurance policies at issue and the coverage issues. Moreover, even if the Court
accepted Travelers’ argument that it did not need to move to intervene until a trial was
-3-
1
certain, Travelers has offered no explanation for its delay in moving to intervene between
2
the time summary judgment was denied in February 2013 and the date its motion to
3
intervene was filed in June 2013. Indeed, Travelers has offered no explanation for
4
moving to intervene on the eve of the Final Pretrial Conference. The Final Pretrial
5
Conference is the last time prior to trial that the Court meets with the Parties and is the
6
time to entertain issues for trial. Travelers has been aware of this case since 2010 and
7
should have, at the very least, immediately moved to intervene when the motions for
8
summary judgment were denied.
9
Moreover, the Parties have jointly prepared voir dire and jury instructions and
10
have submitted their proposed verdict forms. It would be prejudicial to the Parties, who
11
have worked diligently to meet this Court’s deadlines, to require them to start over
12
simply because of Travelers’ untimely intervention. As a result, the second factor,
13
prejudice, weighs against Travelers because intervention prejudices the other Parties. In
14
addition, Travelers is not prejudiced by a denial of the motion to intervene because
15
Travelers will still have an opportunity to protect its interest in a declaratory judgment
16
action.1
17
Finally, the third factor weighs against Travelers because Travelers has not offered
18
a satisfactory reason for the length of its delay. Travelers knew of its interests well
19
before it filed the motion to intervene, and yet waited until the Court had resolved many
20
substantive pretrial issues. Accordingly, Travelers’ motion to intervene is untimely.
21
Moreover, Travelers does not have a “significantly protectable” interest in the
22
action. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2004)
23
(denying a creditor’s motion for intervention in an action involving violations of the Safe
24
Drinking Water Act because the creditor’s prospective interest in collecting a secured
25
26
27
28
1
Travelers’ collateral estoppel argument is unpersuasive because Arizona law
permits an insurer to litigate coverage issues based on policy preclusions after a court has
resolved the insured’s liability. Arizona Prop. Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund v. Martin, 113 P.3d
701, 703–05 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). Travelers will only be prohibited from relitigating
liability issues. Id.
-4-
1
debt was too far removed from the underlying claims of health and environmental
2
policies); see also Restor-A-Dent Dental Labs., Inc. v. Certified Alloy Prods., Inc., 725
3
F.2d 871, 874 (2nd Cir. 1984) (finding that the applicant for intervention as of right must
4
have a direct interest in the case). This case involves federal and Arizona Fair Housing
5
Act claims, while Travelers’ interest exclusively involves an insurance coverage dispute.
6
Although Travelers’ insurance policy may cover some of the claims against the Town of
7
Colorado City, Travelers’ asserted interest depends upon two contingencies: (1) a jury
8
verdict against the Town of Colorado City and (2) a finding that Travelers’ policy
9
precludes coverage of the losses based on the underlying claims. As a result, Travelers’
10
interest is sufficiently removed from the underlying claims between Plaintiffs, the Town
11
of Colorado City, and the Hildale Defendants such that Travelers does not have a
12
“significantly protectable” interest in this case.
13
demonstrate that Travelers fulfills factors one and two of the threshold requirements for
14
intervention as of right, Travelers’ motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) is denied.
15
B.
Based on Travelers’ failure to
PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) relevantly states, “[o]n timely motion, the
17
court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the
18
main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). An applicant
19
seeking permissive intervention must show that: (1) the applicant’s claim or defense
20
shares a common question of law or fact with the main action; (2) the applicant’s motion
21
is timely; and (3) the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction over the applicant’s
22
claims. LULAC, 131 F.3d at 1308 (citing Nw. Forest Res., 82 F.3d at 839). As in the
23
intervention as of right analysis, timeliness is a threshold requirement. Id. To determine
24
whether a motion to intervene is timely, the Court considers the same three factors: (1)
25
the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks intervention; (2) the prejudice to
26
the other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of delay. Id. Although the factors are
27
the same, the Court analyzes the timeliness requirement more strictly than under
28
intervention as of right. Id. Accordingly, because Travelers’ motion to intervene is not
-5-
1
timely for the purpose of intervention as of right, it is also not timely when considered for
2
permissive intervention. Because Travelers does not satisfy the threshold requirements
3
for allowance of permissive intervention, Travelers’ motion to intervene under Rule 24(b)
4
is denied.
5
III.
6
Based on the foregoing,
7
IT IS ORDERED that Travelers’ Motion to Intervene (Doc. 432) is denied.
CONCLUSION
8
9
Dated this 19th day of September, 2013.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
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?