United States v. Kim et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting Wilmington's 36 Motion to Intervene under Rule 24(a)(2), signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/12/16. Wilmington's answer to plaintiff's complaint shall be filed within seven (7) days of this order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02207-KJM-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UN SIK KIM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Before the court is an unopposed motion by Wilmington Trust National

19

Association, as trustee for MFRA Trust 2015-1 (Wilmington), requesting leave to intervene in the

20

above-captioned case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). ECF Nos. 36, 39.

21

Wilmington also makes an unopposed request to file an answer to the complaint in this case.

22

ECF Nos. 36, 39.

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides:

24

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.

25
26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In determining whether intervention as of right is appropriate, the court
1

1
2
3
4
5

applies a four-part test:
(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant
must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the
applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may,
as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to
protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be
adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit.

6

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation

7

omitted). “In determining whether intervention is appropriate, courts are guided primarily by

8

practical and equitable considerations, and the requirements for intervention are broadly

9

interpreted in favor of intervention.” United States v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d 1142, 1148

10

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004)).

11

Here, the court finds Wilmington has satisfied the four requirements under Rule

12

24(a)(2), for the reasons set forth in its brief: (1) the motion is timely; (2) as the current owner of

13

the Deed of Trust for the property at issue in this dispute, Wilmington has a “significantly

14

protectable” interest in the United States’ suit against defendants to foreclose on the same

15

property; (3) similarly, disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede

16

Wilmington’s ability to protect this interest; and (4) Wilmington’s interest is not adequately

17

represented by the existing parties in the action, see Southwest Ctr., 268 F.3d at 822 (setting forth

18

three-prong test for inadequacy of representation).

19

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Wilmington’s unopposed motion to intervene

20

under Rule 24(a)(2). Wilmington’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint shall be filed within seven (7)

21

days of this order.

22

This order resolves ECF No. 36.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: September 12, 2016

25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2