Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if . the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may ... as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that ' interest.... Alaska R. Civ. P. 19(a). 28 . See Brandon v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269, 274 (Alaska 2001) (citing Parson v. Marathon Oil Co., 960 P.2d 615, 618 (Alaska 1998); LeDoux v. Kodiak Island Borough, 827 P.2d 1121, 1123 (Alaska 1992)) (stating that "a rule on one motion is an implicit denial of another contradictory pending motion"). 29 . Mundt v. Nw. Explorations, Inc., 947 P.2d 827, 830 (Alaska 1997) (<HOLDING>). 30 . See Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted (B) holding applicants motion to intervene was timely even though it was filed after superior court entered final judgment because record was unclear whether applicant knew before court issued its order invalidating her interest in land her parcels of land would be affected by the litigation (C) holding that court had jurisdiction where no separate judgment had been entered even though notice of appeal was not timely filed as measured from the final decision (D) holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court (E) holding that even though the complaint sought money damages and land was actually recovered the attorneys lien attached to the land
Output (English): holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted