Hoffman v. Coleman et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING 27 First MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Plaintiff State of Indiana ex rel. Indiana Department of Transportation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 2/9/2017. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
MICHELLE A. HOFFMAN,
Personal Representative of the Estate of
David L. Hoffman,
Plaintiff,
v.
JERNANE L. COLEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:16-cv-00190-JVB-SLC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is motion to intervene (DE 27) filed by the State of Indiana ex rel.
Indiana Department of Transportation (“the State”) on January 12, 2017, seeking leave of Court
to intervene as a plaintiff in this suit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. No party
has filed a response to the State’s motion, and the time to do so has now passed.
For the following reasons, the State’s motion will be DENIED.
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Michelle Hoffman, personal representative of the estate of David Hoffman, filed
this suit against Defendants Jernane L. Coleman, Johnson Transportation Solutions, LLC, and JB
Hunt Transportation, Inc., in Grant Circuit Court, Indiana, on May 4, 2016. (DE 6). The
complaint alleges that on October 29, 2015, Coleman recklessly or negligently drove his tractor
and trailer through the intersection of State Road 22 and State Road 13 in disregard to the traffic
control devices and failed to yield to a vehicle driven by David Hoffman, who died as a result of
the collision. (DE 6 ¶¶ 16, 18).
Defendants timely removed the case here based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §

1332.1 (DE 1; DE 12). The Court held a preliminary pretrial conference on July 19, 2016,
setting the following deadlines: February 15, 2017, for Plaintiff to seek leave to join additional
parties and to amend the pleadings; March 17, 2017, for Defendants to seek leave to join
additional parties and to amend the pleadings; and August 15, 2017, for the completion of all
discovery. (DE 22; DE 23).
The State filed the instant motion to intervene (DE 28) on January 12, 2017, seeking to
recover from Defendants damages to its real estate, improvements, and fixtures in the amount of
$6,180.60 allegedly caused by the accident.
B. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for intervention both as of right and
permissively. Under Rule 24(a), “[a] party has a right to intervene when: (1) the motion to
intervene is timely filed; (2) the proposed intervenors possess an interest related to the subject
matter of the action; (3) disposition of the action threatens to impair that interest; and (4) the
named parties inadequately represent that interest.” Wis. Educ. Ass’n Council v. Walker, 705
F.3d 640, 657 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Ligas ex rel. Foster v. Maram, 478 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir.
2007)). Intervention of right will not be allowed unless all four of these requirements are met.
See Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 946 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
“The applicant bears the burden of proving that each of these elements has been satisfied.”
Builders Ass’n of Greater Chi. v. City of Chi., 170 F.R.D. 435, 440 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Am.
Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. v. City of Chi., 865 F.2d 144, 146 (7th Cir. 1989)).
1

Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan. (DE 12 ¶ 2). Coleman is a citizen of Pennsylvania; Johnson
Transportation Solutions, LLC, is a citizen of New Jersey; and JB Hunt Transportation, Inc., is a citizen of Georgia
and Arkansas. (DE 12 ¶¶ 3-5). The amount in controversy as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants exceeds
$75,000. (DE 12 ¶ 6).

2

“Permissive intervention is allowed under Rule 24(b), once again upon timely
application, when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or
fact in common.” Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty., 214 F.3d at 949 (internal quotation marks
omitted). A party seeking to intervene under Rule 24(b) must also establish an independent basis
for subject matter jurisdiction. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Slater Steels Corp., 220 F.R.D.
339, 341 (N.D. Ind. 2004) (citing Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377,
1381 (7th Cir. 1995)). “Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is wholly discretionary and
will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.” Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty., 214 F.3d at 949
(citation omitted).
C. Analysis
The State does not indicate in its motion whether it is seeking intervention of right
pursuant to Rule 24(a) or permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). Nor does it address,
much less discuss, the required elements for either method of intervention.
As to intervention of right under Rule 24(a), the State’s motion is timely as it moved to
intervene eight months after Plaintiff filed her complaint, and there is no indication that any of
the parties would be prejudiced by this delay. See Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316,
321 (7th Cir. 1995) (finding that a delay of 19 months from the time the suit was filed to the time
intervention was sought was not untimely). The deadlines for seeking leave to amend the
pleadings have not yet passed, and discovery is open for seven more months. See Williams v.
Am. Equip. & Fabricating Corp., No. 09-1168, 2010 WL 1881998, at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 10,
2010) (finding a motion to intervene timely where it was filed prior to the deadlines for any
amendments to the pleadings and plenty of time remained within the discovery period).

3

Furthermore, it is obvious that the State has an interest in this litigation as it alleges that its real
estate, improvements, and fixtures were damaged in the accident in the amount of $6,180.60.
(DE 28-1 ¶ 13). Therefore, the State easily satisfies the first two factors required in intervention
of right.
The State stumbles, however, at establishing the third factor. It is unclear how the
disposition of this action threatens to impair the State’s interest, as it seems that the State is not
impeded from filing a separate lawsuit in state court against Defendants to recover the property
damages that the State seeks. As a result, the State has not carried its burden of showing that all
of the four requirements of Rule 24(a) have been satisfied with respect to intervention of right.
Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty., 214 F.3d at 946; Builders Ass’n of Greater Chi., 170 F.R.D. at 440.
Turning to permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), it is true that the State’s claim and
the main action appear to have a question of law or fact in common. See Sokaogon Chippewa
Cmty., 214 F.3d at 946. However, a party seeking to intervene under Rule 24(b) must also
establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.,
220 F.R.D. at 341 (citing Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 69 F.3d at 1381); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1367(b). The State, while diverse in citizenship from Defendants, seeks to recover just
$6,180.60 in damages from Defendants, and the State’s demand is separate from Plaintiff’s
demand. “When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for
convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the
requisite jurisdictional amount . . . .” Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714, 719 (7th Cir.
2012) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Zahn v. Int’l Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 294 (1973)); see also
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 473 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted);

4

Anthony v. Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs., Inc., 75 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). The
State’s demand, however, falls short of the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement for
diversity jurisdiction, and thus, it has not shown an independent basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (indicating that the amount in controversy must exceed
$75,000 in establishing diversity jurisdiction). “In all cases, the party asserting federal
jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is proper.” Travelers Prop. Ins.,
689 F3d at 722.
In sum, the State has failed to carry its burden of establishing all of the required elements
for intervention either of right or permissively. Therefore, its motion for intervention under Rule
24 will be denied.
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion to intervene (DE 27) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 9th day of February 2017.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins,
United States Magistrate Judge

5