Guthrie v. Cuellar et al

Filing 47

ORDER; Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor Richard Greens Motionto Intervene as Plaintiff" 43 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing. Additionally, Mr. Greens First Intervenor Complaint (Doc. No. 42) is STRICKEN as it does not contain the proper caption, as noted in the courts previous Order, see Doc. No. 41, and pursuant to ECF Filing Procedures § 4.6(b), is improperly filed as a separate pleading, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/15/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–02460–PAB–KMT
TAMITHY GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE CUELLAR,
TOKHIR KASIMOV, and
ZARA LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor Richard Green’s “Motion
to Intervene as Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 43 [“Mot.”].) Mr. Green seeks to intervene as a plaintiff,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), based on his contention that he has a claim that shares a
common question of law or fact with the Plaintiff’s claims herein.
This case arose out of a vehicle collision on Interstate 70. (Doc. No. 1 at 1–2.) Plaintiff
alleges that on February 13, 2014, Defendant Cuellar, while driving a semi-truck during the
course of his employment that was owned by his employers, Defendants Kasimov and Zara
Logistics, Inc., struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing her severe injury. (Id.) Mr. Green contends
that after Defendant Cuellar’s semi-truck struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, it continued to collide with
another vehicle, which then in turn collided with Mr. Green’s vehicle. (Mot. at 2.) Mr. Green

requests to intervene in this action because the questions of law, facts and witnesses related to
Plaintiff’s claims will be the same as any action Mr. Green initiates to pursue his own claims.
(Id.)
By its terms, Rule 24 only permits “timely intervention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)
(emphasis provided). Mr. Green’s request to intervene comes extremely late in this litigation.
Plaintiff initiated this action on September 4, 2014 and the Final Pre-Trial Conference was held
today. Due to the late nature of Mr. Green’s attempt to intervene, he did not participate in the
preparation of the proposed Pre-Trial Order nor the Final Pre-Trial Conference.1
“Timeliness [of a request to intervene] is assessed ‘in light of all of the circumstances,’
including: (1) ‘the length of time since the applicant knew of his interest in the case,’ (2)
‘prejudice to the existing parties,’ (3) ‘prejudice to the applicant,’ and (4) ‘the existence of any
unusual circumstances.’” Porter v. Graves, 597 F. App’x. 964, 967 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Sanguine, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 736 F.2d 1416, 1418 (10th Cir. 1984)). In spite of the
fact that in the previous order denying Mr. Green’s request to intervene, the court specifically
raised its concern regarding the late nature of his request, see Doc. No. 41, he has not addressed
any of these factors or the timeliness of his Motion, in general. Based on the current record, the
court finds that Mr. Green’s request is not timely.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that proposed Plaintiff Intervenor Richard Green’s “Motion to Intervene as
Plaintiff” (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing. Should Mr. Green

1

The court notes that during the Final Pre-Trial Conference, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that
he has been unable to confer with Mr. Green’s counsel regarding the request to intervene. As a
result, Plaintiff could not state affirmatively whether she would object to the same.
2

choose again to move to intervene in this action, he should explain why the court should consider
the request timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Additionally, Mr. Green’s First Intervenor
Complaint (Doc. No. 42) is STRICKEN as it does not contain the proper caption, as noted in the
court’s previous Order, see Doc. No. 41, and pursuant to ECF Filing Procedures § 4.6(b), is
improperly filed as a separate pleading.
Dated March 15, 2016.

3