Civility Experts Worldwide v. Molly Manners, LLC

Filing 165

MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Stipulated Motion to Intervene and Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/26/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00521-WJM-MJW
CIVILITY EXPERTS WORLDWIDE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOLLY MANNERS, LLC,
APRIL ROLLINS,
LOYCE RIGGANS,
ALISON SMITH,
FELICIA KNOWLES,
SHANNON COMBS, and
MONIKA VIRTA-GUPTA,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that:
•

The parties’ Stipulated Motion and Order (Docket No. 151) is GRANTED
for the reasons set forth below;

•

April Rollins and Tanya Maclin are each permitted to intervene under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24(b);

•

Docket No. 151-1 (Complaint in Intervention of April Rollins) is
ACCEPTED FOR FILING; and

•

Docket No. 151-2 ((Complaint in Intervention of Tanya Maclin) is
ACCEPTED FOR FILING.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) provides that, on timely motion, the
court may permit intervention to anyone who “has a claim or defense that shares with
the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B). The
decision whether or not to grant a motion for permissive intervention is within the district
court’s sound discretion. See, e.g., City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp.,
79 F.3d 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 1996). In exercising this discretion, “the court must
consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the

original parties’ rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(3). Further,
In deciding whether permissive intervention is warranted once the
threshold requirement of a common question of law or fact is satisfied,
courts may consider such factors as: “(1) whether the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights; (2)
whether the would-be intervenor’s input adds value to the existing
litigation; (3) whether the petitioner’s interests are adequately represented
by the existing parties; and (4) the availability of an adequate remedy in
another action.”
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy Dist. v. United States, 252 F.R.D. 687,
690-91 (D. Colo. 2008) (quoting United States v. N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 251
F.R.D. 590, 598 (D.Colo.2008)).
Here, based on the parties’ stipulation and my own review of the case, I find that
the factors easily weigh in favor of allowing permissive intervention. Common questions
of law and fact abound; there is no indication that any prejudice or delay would occur;
and the intervenors add value to the case. Indeed, both intervenors were previously
named as defendants in this suit; plaintiff’s claims against them have been settled, and
they seek now only to assert what would have been entirely permissible cross-claims
had they remained in the case in the first place. Permissive intervention makes eminent
good sense here.
Date: October 26, 2015