State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dunlap et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 8 Kanika Dembla's Motion to Intervene. Ms. Dembla SHALL FILE her Answer to the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on or before May 16, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on May 10, 2013. (AYB)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

V.
GEORGE DUNLAP, JUDY DUNLAP, and
SHAUN DUNLAP,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-CV-23
(PHILLIPS/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Kanika Dembla’s Motion to Intervene [Doc. 8]. Ms. Dembla
states that she is the sole surviving member of the Dembla family. She asserts that she was
catastrophically injured and her family was killed as a result of the automobile collision of July
7, 2012, which is the subject of the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this case. Ms.
Dembla claims an interest relating to the property that is the subject of this action, and she asserts
that disposing of this action will, as a practical matter, impair or impede her ability to protect her
interests.
Pursuant to Rule 24, the Court must, on timely motion, permit a person or entity to
intervene, where the person or entity “claims an interest relating to property or transaction that is
the subjection of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the matter may as a practical

matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
In this case, Ms. Dembla’s allegations demonstrate that intervention is appropriate under
Rule 24, and no party has demonstrated to the Court that it will adequately represent Ms.
Dembla’s interests. Further, the Court finds that the motion is timely given the early stage of this
litigation. Moreover, no party has responded in opposition to the Motion to Intervene, and the
time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), 5(b)(2)(E). The
Court may treat the lack of opposition during the time allowed under the rule as acquiescence to
the relief sought. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2; see also Campbell v. McMinn County, 2012 WL
369090 (E.D. Tenn. 2012).
Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for allowing Ms. Dembla to intervene in this
action.

The Court finds that the Motion to Intervene [Doc. 8] is well-taken, and it is

GRANTED.

Ms. Dembla SHALL FILE her Answer to the Complaint for Declaratory

Judgment on or before May 16, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:
/s H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

2