IDEKER FARMS, INC., et al v. USA

Filing 49

UNREPORTED ORDER denying 43 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (tc) Copy to parties.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 14-183L
(Filed: May 14, 2015)
UNPUBLISHED
IDEKER FARMS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
On March 16, 2015, Key Equipment Finance (“KEF”) filed a motion to intervene
under Rule 24 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). ECF
No. 43. KEF seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of filing its Notice of Lien to
preserve its security interest in an Ellicott Series 600 Dredge that was allegedly damaged
during the 2011 flood. The dredge was leased by Plaintiff Matthew Fulford, dba Southwest
Contracting, Inc. (“Southwest”), one of the approximately 372 landowners alleging a Fifth
Amendment taking in this case. KEF claims to have a “perfected security interest in the
cash and noncash proceeds of the Dredge including claims by Southwest and Fulford for
loss or damage to, or destruction of, such equipment.” Id. at 2. Southwest disputes KEF’s
claim to a lien, and the issue is currently being litigated in a breach of contract suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. See Key Equipment Finance v.
Southwest Contracting Inc., et al., 14-cv-000206 (D. Colo 2014). A trial is scheduled for

September of 2015. For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES KEF’s motion to
intervene.
RCFC 24(a)(2) states, in relevant part, that a court must permit anyone to intervene
who, upon timely motion:
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
The Federal Circuit found that this rule requires the court to apply a four-part test:
First, the motion must be timely. Second, the movant must claim some
interest in the property affected by the case. This interest must be ‘legally
protectable’—merely economic interests will not suffice. . . . Third, that
interest’s relationship to the litigation must be ‘of such a direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal
operation and effect of the judgment.’ . . . . Fourth, . . . the movant must
demonstrate that said interest is not adequately addressed by the [parties’]
participation.
Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v. Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen's Associations, 695 F.3d
1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original) (quoting Am. Mar. Transp., Inc. v.
United States, 870 F.2d 1559, 1560-62 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
In this case, KEF has not met its burden of showing that it has an interest that is
sufficiently direct and immediate to warrant intervention. Even assuming that KEF is able
to establish its security interest in the Colorado litigation, the interest that KEF alleges bears
only an indirect at best relationship to the subject of the litigation. At present, Southwest’s
takings claim is concerned only with the taking of real property. In its opposition to KEF’s
motion to intervene, plaintiff asserted that the plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint to
include a takings allegation for personal property as well as land. ECF No. 44 at 2. At this
2

time, however, that claim is not before this court and KEF has not explained how resolution
of Southwest’s takings claim in this case would impair KEF’s ability to protect the financial
interest in the dredge KEF has identified in its motion.
Even if the dredge were included as part of this litigation, KEF still would not be able
to fulfill the requirements of Rule 24(a) because KEF has not given any reason why its
inability to participate in this case would “impair or impede [KEF’s] ability to protect its
interest,” RCFC 24(a)(2). KEF claims to have a security interest in a dredge it leased to
Southwest. However, the ultimate outcome of Southwest’s takings claim will have no effect
on KEF’s alleged lien on the dredge. In a similar case, Aeroplate Corp. v. United States, the
court rejected a lienholder’s argument that it needed to intervene in plaintiff’s case against
the government in order to protect its interest. 111 Fed. Cl. 298, 300 (2013). The court
found that the lienholders assertions were “conclusory in nature” and noted that the
lienholder “does not attempt to explain how the court’s resolution of plaintiff’s suits would
impair or preclude the enforcement of its judgment against plaintiff.” Id. KEF likewise has
given no reason, other than conclusory statements, to explain why it needs to intervene in to
enforce its lien.
Consequently, KEF does not meet the requirements of RCFC 24(a) for intervention
as of right, and its motion to intervene is now DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy B. Firestone
NANCY B. FIRESTONE
Judge

3