Mallicoat v. Archer Daniels-Midland Company et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Passavant Area Hospitals Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 3/24/2014. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROGER MALLICOAT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11CV1218 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Intervene filed by Passavant Area
Hospital (ECF No. 44). Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have filed a response in opposition to
said motion, and the time for doing so has expired.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, et seq, for damages
stemming from injuries he sustained while working as a deckineer for Defendants. Passavant Area
Hospital, the proposed Intervenor to this federal action, provided medical services to Plaintiff for
those injuries, causing Plaintiff to incur medical bills. Those bills remain unpaid in the amount of
$28,845.79. (Mot. to Intervene ¶ 6, ECF No. 44)
On January 29, 2014, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement, and
they requested that the Court adjudicate the outstanding liens. (Joint Mot. to Adjudicate Liens,
ECF No. 41) The Court then set the motion for hearing, specifically to allow the parties to inform
the Court regarding jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate claims or liens of non-parties. (ECF
No. 42) Thereafter, on February 24, 2014, Passavant Area Hospital filed a Motion to Intervene
and a Response in Opposition to the Joint Motion to Adjudicate Liens. The parties have not timely

filed a response to Passavant Area Hospital’s motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a court must allow anyone to intervene
where that movant “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of
the action, and is so situation 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.” Here, Passavant Area Hospital contends that the parties are asking this Court to
adjudicate the hospital’s lien for substantially less than the amount owed, thus impairing its ability
to protect its interests in recovering the monies due for unpaid medical bills. After thorough
consideration of the motion and the response in opposition filed by Passavant Area Hospital, the
undersigned finds that intervention is proper in this case. Therefore, the Court will grant the
motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Passavant Area Hospital’s Motion to Intervene (ECF
No. 44) is GRANTED.

/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.

2