Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01959/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01959-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Paul D.H. LaBarre, 

Appellants, 

v. 

Dale D. Ulrich, 

Appellee.

No. CV-15-1959-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On September 28, 2015, DirectTV, LLC (“DirectTV”) moved to intervene as an 

appellee in this case pursuant to Rule 8013(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure. Doc. 1 at 34. On November 13, 2015, Appellants filed a pro se objection to 

this motion. Doc. 6. Appellants’ objection will be overruled and DirectTV’s motion will 

be granted. 

 A party seeking to intervene in a bankruptcy appeal must move for leave to 

intervene within 30 days after the appeal is docketed. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013(g). The 

motion “must concisely state the movant’s interest, the grounds for intervention, whether 

intervention was sought in the bankruptcy court, why intervention is being sought at this 

stage of the proceeding, and why participating as an amicus curiae would not be 

adequate.” Id. Some courts also require prospective intervenors (including those 

intervening on the side of the defendant or appellee) to demonstrate Article III standing. 

See, e.g., Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 788 F.3d 

312, 316 (D.C. Cir. 2015). It is an open question whether such a showing is required in 

Case 2:15-cv-01959-DGC Document 8 Filed 12/07/15 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 

the Ninth Circuit. See Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 n.2 

(9th Cir. 2009); Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956 n.8 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 DirectTV has made the required showing. Its timely motion states that it 

“participated in the bankruptcy case, made significant concessions to its secured claim in 

the Plan, obtained benefits from the Plan, and actively opposed the Debtors’ objections to 

the Plan.” Doc. 1 at 35. The motion also provides a concise statement why DirectTV is 

moving for intervention at this stage in the proceeding and why amicus curiae status 

would be inadequate. Id. at 42-43. Finally, DirectTV has established Article III standing 

by demonstrating that appellants’ victory in this proceeding would adversely affect its 

concrete and particularized pecuniary interests. 

 Appellants do not seriously contest any of this. Instead, they argue that DirectTV 

should be barred from participating in this proceeding because it has engaged in “bad” 

conduct in prior litigation against Appellants. For example, Appellants contend that 

DirectTV’s counsel incorrectly stated in a prior proceeding that one of Appellants had 

fabricated an email, only to retract this statement upon reviewing the file. Doc. 6 at 2. 

But whether DirectTV or its counsel engaged in misconduct in prior litigation (DirectTV 

argues that it made an innocent and inconsequential mistake) is irrelevant to the question 

at hand: whether DirectTV’s interest in this proceeding is sufficient to support a motion 

to intervene under Rule 8013(g) of the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Court 

is not, and cannot be, in the business of adjudicating substantive disputes between the 

parties at this threshold stage of the litigation. Appellants’ objection will therefore be 

overruled.1

 

 

1

 Appellants objection is also untimely. Rule 8013(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides that a response to a motion to intervene must be filed 

within seven days after service. Appellants filed their response almost a month after DirectTV filed its motion. The Court reminds Appellants that pro se litigants are not exempt from deadlines established by statute, rule, or regulation. See, e.g., Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (refusing to excuse pro se litigant’s failure to request jury trial before deadline). 

Case 2:15-cv-01959-DGC Document 8 Filed 12/07/15 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 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to intervene (Doc. 1 at 34-44) is granted. 

Dated this 7th day of December, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01959-DGC Document 8 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 3