Hettick v. Brown et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that the motion to intervene (Dkt. # 21) is denied. This case shall remain terminated and the Court Clerk shall not reopen the case in light of Saint Gobain and its insurers motion to intervene. (Re: 21 Intervenor Complaint, 20 Stipulation of Dismissal ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES HETTICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES BROWN,
CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES, INC.,
CELADON TRUCKING SERVICES OF
INDIANA, INC., and JOHN DOE
CELADON ENTITIES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-0188-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Saint Gobain Containers, Inc. and Indemnity Insurance Company
of North America’s Petition for Recovery of Subrogation/Reimbursement Interest against
Defendants (Dkt. # 21). Non-party Saint Gobain Containers, Inc. (Saint Gobain) and its insurance
carrier, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, seek to enforce their rights of subrogation
or reimbursement under Oklahoma workers’ compensation law.1 As Saint Gobain and its insurer
are not parties and the case is terminated, the Court will treat Saint Gobain’s and its insurer’s filing
as a motion to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
On October 31, 2011, plaintiff James Hettick filed this case in Creek County District Court
alleging that he was injured in a workplace accident and he sought to hold parties other than his
1
Saint Gobain cites OKLA. STAT. tit. 85, § 44(a) as the statutory basis for its right of
subrogation or reimbursement, but that statute has been repealed. The current version of the
statute is codified at OKLA. STAT. tit. 85, § 348.
employer liable for his injuries.2 Plaintiff’s employer, Saint Gobain, was not named as a party in
this case but, instead, plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits from his employer in
Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court. The defendants removed this case to federal court based
on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 2. The parties requested at least six months to complete discovery
to assess the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, because any recovery in this case would be subject to
Saint Gobain’s and its insurer’s statutory right to seek reimbursement. Dkt. # 13, at 3. At the time
the joint status report was filed on May 9, 2012, the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court had
already entered an order awarding plaintiff permanent partial disability benefits, but the parties
needed additional time to “assess the [p]laintiff’s final or anticipated subrogation amount.” Id. On
November 12, 2012, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. # 20) and the case was
terminated. Saint Gobain states that it has paid the plaintiff over $27,000 in workers’ compensation
benefits as a result of the accident. Dkt. # 21, at 2. Almost a year after the case was dismissed by
the parties, Saint Gobain and its insurer now seek to intervene in this case for the purpose of
“allow[ing] Saint Gobain and its insurer to pursue [claims] against Defendants . . . .” Id. at 4.
Under Rule 24, a non-party may request leave to intervene in a pending case “upon timely
motion.” A prerequisite for intervention is that there be an existing case in which the non-party can
intervene. Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc., 675
F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 2012); Tosco Corp. v. Hodel, 804 F.2d 590, 591 (10th Cir. 1986); McKay v.
Heyison, 614 P.2d 899, 907 (3d Cir. 1980). Intervention is ancillary to the proceedings and
2
The incident giving rise to this case occurred on June 29, 2011. Dkt. # 2-1, at 3. Hettick
alleges that he was using a forklift to load pallets onto a tractor trailer operated by
defendants, and defendant Charles Brown pulled the tractor trailer away from the loading
dock while Hettick was attempting to load the trailer. Id. The forklift allegedly fell off the
loading dock and landed on the ground. Id.
2
“whenever an action is terminated, for whatever reason, there no longer remains an action in which
there can be intervention.” Black v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 500 F.2d 407, 408 (4th Cir. 1974).
Post-judgment intervention has been permitted when unusual or compelling circumstances are
present, but the party seeking intervention must still show that motion for intervention was timely.
R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2009); Thurman
v. F.D.I.C., 889 F.2d 1441, 1446 (5th Cir. 1989). The Tenth Circuit requires that the timeliness of
a motion to intervene be “assessed ‘in light of all the circumstances, including the length of time
since the applicant knew of his interest in the case, prejudice to the existing parties, prejudice to the
applicant, and the existence of any unusual circumstances.’” Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255
F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001).
The Court will assume for the purpose of ruling on Saint Gobain’s and its insurer’s motion
to intervene that it is permissible for a party to file a post-judgment motion to intervene in order to
reopen a terminated civil case, and the Court will consider whether the motion could be deemed
timely under Rule 24. The first factor for the Court to consider is how long Saint Gobain and its
insurer were aware of their right of subrogation or their right to seek reimbursement from
defendants. Id. at 1250. The Court has reviewed the motion and the parties’ filings in this case, and
it is apparent that the parties, Saint Gobain, and the insurer were aware from the outset of the case
that the issues of subrogation and reimbursement would need to be resolved. In fact, the parties
were reluctant to proceed with settlement negotiations due to Saint Gobain’s and its insurer’s right
to recover from defendants, because they advised the Court that they could not settle the case
without “the employer/carrier’s input.” Dkt. # 13, at 3. Saint Gobain’s rights of subrogation or
reimbursement arose before May 9, 2012 because the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Court had
3
already awarded permanent partial disability benefits to plaintiff by that date, but neither Saint
Gobain nor its insurer made any attempt to intervene in this case. Id. This shows that Saint Gobain
and its insurer knew of their interests long before they sought to intervene. This case has been
closed for over a year and the existing parties would be prejudiced if the case were reopened.
However, Saint Gobain and its insurer could still seek reimbursement from defendants in a separate
proceeding and it is not necessary for the Court to reopen this case in order for Saint Gobain and its
insurer to recover against defendants. Saint Gobain and its insurer will suffer no prejudice if the
motion to intervene is denied. See American Agency Systems, Inc. v. Marceleno, 53 P.3d 929
(employer may maintain subrogation claim against third party tortfeasor in a separate proceeding).
Finally, the Court finds no unusual circumstances that would require the Court to reopen a case that
has been closed for over a year. Considering all of the circumstances, the Court finds no basis to
excuse Saint Gobain’s or its insurer’s delay is seeking to intervene in this case and the motion to
intervene (Dkt. # 21) should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to intervene (Dkt. # 21) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall remain terminated and the Court Clerk
shall not reopen the case in light of Saint Gobain and its insurer’s motion to intervene.
DATED this 14th day of November, 2013.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?