Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00763-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AARON EBO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MANITEX; INTERNATIONAL LINE 

BUILDERS, INC.; and Does 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL LINE BUILDERS, 

INC. and LIBERTY MUTUAL, 

 Applicants in 

 Intervention. 

______________________________/

No. Civ. S-07-0763 RRB DAD 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

International Line Builders, Inc. and Liberty Mutual move 

to intervene as plaintiffs. Manitex, the only remaining named 

defendant, filed a statement of non-opposition. For the reasons 

below, the court GRANTS the motion. 

 Plaintiff Aaron Ebo suffered an accident on January 12, 

2006 while operating a crane for International Line Builders. 

Case 2:07-cv-00763-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

At the time of the accident, Liberty Mutual insured 

International Line Builders. On January 19, 2007, Ebo sued 

Manitex, the manufacturer of the crane involved in the accident.1 

International Line Builders and Liberty Mutual now file this 

timely motion to intervene in Ebo’s action. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) allows 

intervention “when the applicant claims an interest relating to 

the property or transaction which is the subject of the action 

and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the 

action may as a practical matter impair or impede the 

applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the 

applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing 

parties.” The court finds that the intervenors’ motion 

satisfies these requirements. In cases “where the employee 

himself sues the third party tortfeasor, the courts have long 

recognized a right of subrogation to the extent of payments 

made, and have permitted the employer or its insurer to 

intervene in the employee's suit to protect its right.” Dodge 

v. Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K.K. Tokyo, 528 F.2d 669, 674 (9th Cir. 

1975). Under California law, both the employer, Cal. Lab. Code 

§ 3853, and the insurer, id. § 3850(b), possess a right to 

 

1

 Although Ebo originally sued both Manitex and International 

Line Builders, the parties later filed a joint stipulation 

voluntarily dismissing International Line Builders. 

Case 2:07-cv-00763-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

subrogation. Due to medical payments by International Line 

Builders and Liberty Mutual to Ebo, the intervenors have an 

interest in Ebo’s recovery that may not be adequately 

represented by Ebo. The court finds that the intervenors have 

pursued their interest in the action in a timely manner and that 

their intervention would not prejudice the original parties. 

Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion.2 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

2

 The court finds that the intervenors are of diverse 

citizenship in relation to the original parties and each other. 

Therefore, granting the motion does not disturb the court’s 

jurisdiction. 

Case 2:07-cv-00763-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3