Aipperspach v. McInerney, et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 76 non-party William Hart's motion to intervene and 84 motion for hearing. Signed on 10/9/12 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 10/9/2012 - Mailed to William Hart (Francis, Alexandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
NOELLE ROSELYN AIPPERSPACH, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
MAHIR S. AL-HAKIM, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK MCINERNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-01225-CV-W-DGK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
In the present lawsuit, Plaintiff Aipperspach, the Personal Representative of Mahir AlHakim’s Estate, alleges decedent was subject to excessive force when he was shot and killed by law
enforcement officers on March 18, 2010 in Riverside, Missouri. Currently pending before the Court
is non-party William Hart’s pro se motion to intervene (Doc. 76). Having fully considered Mr.
Hart’s argument and the Defendants’ suggestions in opposition,1 the Court denies Mr. Hart’s motion.
Standard
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may intervene in an
action permissively or as of right. The court must permit a party to intervene if it can show “(1) it
has a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (2) the interest might be impaired by
the disposition of the case; and (3) the interest will not be adequately protected by the existing
parties.” South Dakota ex rel Barnett v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 317 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2003). In
deciding whether to grant a motion to intervene as a matter of right, the court liberally construes

1

In ruling on the pending motion, the Court has also considered suggestions in opposition filed by Defendants Platte
County, Anderson, and Green (Doc. 77); the City of Riverside, Missouri, Gregory Mills, Trevor Ballard, and
Matthew Westrich (Doc. 78); the City of North Kansas City, Missouri, Glenn L. Ladd, and Kyle A. Pansing (Doc.

Rule 24 with “all doubts resolved in favor of the proposed intervenor.” Id. The decision to allow
permissive intervention, on the other hand is “wholly discretionary.” Id. at 787. The principal
consideration is whether the proposed intervention would “unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the parties’ rights.” Id. If the court grants a motion for permissive intervention, it
may place “highly restrictive conditions” on the intervenor “because such a party has by definition
neither a statutory right to intervene nor any interest at stake that the other parties will not
adequately protect or that it could not adequately protect in another proceeding.” Stringfellow v.
Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 382 n.1 (1987).
Discussion
A. Movant does not meet the requirements for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) or
24(b).
Mr. Hart seeks to intervene in the present case as a third party. However, Mr. Hart does not
meet the requirements for intervention “as of right” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) because he has failed
to demonstrate a recognized interest in the litigation or show how that interest will not adequately be
protected by the existing parties. Mr. Hart does not allege that he has a legal interest in the Estate of
the decedent or any other “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Rather, Mr. Hart’s sole reason for seeking to intervene in this matter
is that he “fears for his life” as a result of being a witness and informant in prior federal litigation
unrelated to this matter.
Furthermore, the Court declines to grant permissive intervention where, as here, Mr. Hart has
failed to allege an adequate reason for the necessity of his presence in this lawsuit. While the Court

80); the City of Platte Woods, Missouri, Chief of Police Larry Cory, and Officer William D. Babbitt (Doc. 82); and
the City of Gladstone, Police Chief Hasty, and Officer Morales (Doc. 83).

2

is cognizant of Mr. Hart’s concerns for his personal safety, the Court does not believe his addition to
the present action would properly allay those concerns. Instead, the Court finds it would
unnecessarily complicate and prolong the case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Hart is not entitled to intervention under
either Rule 24(a) or Rule 24(b). Accordingly, Mr. Hart’s motion to intervene (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
Furthermore, Defendants’ Motion for Hearing (Doc. 84) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2012

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3