Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rhoades v. Gossman

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 16, 2018

TOMMY RHOADES, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTHONY GROSSMAN, et al. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Michael G. Hawkins (“Hawkins”) moves to intervene as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2)[1] in this personal injury action by plaintiffs Tommy Rhoades and Sharon Rhoades (collectively, “the Rhoades”) against defendants Anthony Gossman (“Gossman”) and Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. (“Southeastern Freight”). For the reasons that follow, the court grants Hawkins' motion.

         I

         The Rhoades's lawsuit arises from a motor vehicle accident. Hawkins maintains that, while driving on SH 114, he witnessed a hit-and-run accident; he pulled onto the shoulder of the road to offer assistance to the driver of the vehicle that had been hit; and, in the process, he was struck by the vehicle Gossman was operating.

         The Rhoades filed this lawsuit seeking damages related to the motor vehicle accident. Gossman and Southeastern Freight removed the case to this court. Hawkins now moves to intervene as a plaintiff, seeking recovery for his injuries against Gossman and Southeastern Freight. Gossman and Southeastern Freight oppose the motion.

         II

         A

         A party is entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) if (1) the motion to intervene is timely, (2) the interest asserted by the potential intervenor is related to the action, (3) the interest may be impaired or impeded by the action, and (4) the interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties. See, e.g., In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

         B

         Gossman and Southeastern Freight maintain that Hawkins' motion to intervene is untimely. The court disagrees.

         The first element-timeliness-is determined by examining (1) the length of time between the potential intervenor's learning of his interest and his motion to intervene, (2) the extent of prejudice to the existing parties from allowing late intervention, (3) the extent of prejudice to the potential intervenor if the motion is denied, and (4) any unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d at 247-48.

         The Rhoades filed their state-court original petition on September 27, 2017, and Hawkins filed the instant motion to intervene on November 21, 2017. Assuming arguendo that Hawkins learned of his interest in the Rhoades' lawsuit on the day they filed their state-court petition, [2] fewer than two months elapsed before Hawkins filed his motion to intervene. Additionally, Hawkins filed his motion to intervene far in advance of the entry of judgment, a factor that supports a finding of timeliness in the Fifth Circuit. See Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1001 (5th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases). And Gossman and Southeastern Freight have not articulated a reason for why they would be prejudiced by Hawkins' intervention. Accordingly, the court finds that Hawkins' motion is timely.

         C

         Gossman and Southeastern Freight next contend that Hawkins has no interest in the transaction that is the subject of the action. They maintain that Hawkins' interest is merely economic ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.