Martinez v. McGraw et al.

Filing 363

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Chad Etheridge's 176 Motion to Intervene is GRANTED, and his complaint in intervention should be filed in this action. All proceedings with regard to the complaint in intervention should be STAYED pending a disposition of the underlying action. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 9/7/12. (rd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL TIMOTHY McGRAW, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:08-0738
Judge Campbell/Bryant
Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending in this case is a motion to intervene pursuant to
Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed on behalf of Chad
Etheridge, a Texas attorney (Docket Entry No. 176).
As grounds, Mr. Etheridge asserts that he was employed by
plaintiff

Martinez

in

August

2011,

to

serve

as

counsel

for

plaintiff in this case. Mr. Etheridge further claims that after he
had performed certain services pursuant to his employment contract,
plaintiff wrongfully terminated him on or about October 7, 2011
(Docket Entry No. 176-1).

Mr. Etheridge seeks to assert claims

against plaintiff for breach of contract and, alternatively, the
theories

of

enrichment.

quantum

meriut,

promissory

estoppel

and

unjust

Mr. Etheridge also maintains that he has an interest

relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this
action and that he is so situated that disposing of this action may
as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect his
interests unless he is allowed to intervene.

Plaintiff Martinez has filed a response in opposition
(Docket Entry No. 186). In his response, plaintiff Martinez admits
that he began consulting with Mr. Etheridge on or about August 7,
2011, and that he fired Mr. Etheridge, allegedly for cause, on or
about October 7, 2011.

Plaintiff Martinez asserts that Mr.

Etheridge’s motion to intervene is untimely, that plaintiff will be
greatly prejudiced if Mr. Etheridge is allowed to intervene, that
there would be no impairment to Mr. Etheridge’s interest if
intervention were denied, and that if Mr. Etheridge is allowed to
intervene, his participation in the underlying case should be
limited.
Defendants have filed a response (Docket Entry No. 187)
to Mr. Etheridge’s motion to intervene in which they state, in
summary, that Mr. Etheridge has no direct claim against any of the
defendants but, to the extent that his claims are limited to claims
against plaintiff Martinez, defendants do not oppose his motion for
intervention.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that, to the
extent that Mr. Etheridge claims a contingency fee interest in any
recovery by plaintiff Martinez in the underlying action, he does
claim an interest relating to the property that is the subject of
this action, and that he is so situated that a disposition of the
underlying case may impair or impede his ability to protect his
interest if he is not allowed to intervene.

Accordingly, the

undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Mr. Etheridge’s motion for
2

leave to intervene should be GRANTED, and that his complaint in
intervention (Docket Entry No. 176-1) should be filed in this
action.
Despite the above ruling, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that all proceedings with regard to the complaint in
intervention should be STAYED pending a disposition, by judgment or
by settlement, of the underlying action by plaintiff Martinez
against the defendants and that Mr. Etheridge should not be
required, nor permitted, to participate in the litigation of the
underlying action.
It is so ORDERED.

s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

3