Thompson v. Wolverine Services, LLC

Background

Mark Thompson brought one negligence claim against Wolverine Services, LLC. The complaint alleged that on December 20, 2018, a barrier gate at the USDA Westerb Regional Research Center abruptly rose and struck Thompson in the head and face while he was delivering a package. The complaint stated that Wolverine was maintaining the gate. Thompson was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Federal Express Corporation.

Federal Express moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B), which allows a party to join an existing case when it has a related claim or defense. Federal Express represented that it had already paid $112,088.81 in benefits resulting from Thompson’s injury. No opposition to the motion was received.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the requirements for permissive intervention: an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, a timely motion, and a common question of law or fact with the existing case. It found an independent jurisdictional basis because Federal Express was described as a Delaware corporation, Thompson as a California resident, and Wolverine as an Alaska limited liability company with its principal place of business in Colorado. The court also relied on Federal Express’s benefit payments, which exceeded $75,000.

The court found the motion timely because the case was still in its preliminary stages: Wolverine had recently filed its answer, and the initial case-management conference was still two months away. The court also noted California Labor Code section 3853, which permits an employer or employee to join the other as a party plaintiff before trial when one brings an action related to the other’s claim.

The court found a common question of law or fact because Thompson’s complaint stated that he was acting within the scope of his employment with Federal Express when he was injured. Applying additional intervention factors, the court concluded that Federal Express had a substantial interest because Thompson was its employee and because it had made, and likely would continue making, benefit payments. The court also found that intervention would not unduly delay the case or prejudice the existing parties.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Federal Express Corporation’s motion to intervene. It ordered Federal Express to file its complaint-in-intervention immediately. The order addressed Federal Express’s participation in the lawsuit and did not resolve the underlying negligence claim.