Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY A. JASSO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-2649 GEB EFB PS

vs.

CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

This case, in which all plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On August 17,

2007, a document was filed by pro se movant, Kurtis A. Ainslie, entitled “Plaintiff’s Request for

Substitution and Joinder of Real Party in Interest pursuant to F.R.C.P. 17(a).” Therein, Mr.

Ainslie identified himself as a plaintiff and requested “substitution and joinder of real party in

interest” in the above-captioned case. 

Because Mr. Ainslie improperly brought the “request” pursuant to Rule 17(a), and

because he alleged no facts showing that he should be added as a party, the court denied the

request without prejudice and referred him and the other plaintiffs to Rules 20 and 24 of the

Federal Rules of Procedure. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 166 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The opposition was joined by defendants Sierra Pacific Power Company, Valley

Industrial Telecommunications, Inc., California Rural Services Area #1, Inc., United States

Cellular Corporation, and Alturas Ranches, LLC. 

2

On November 1, 2007, Mr. Ainslie filed a “motion for intervention” pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 24. Defendants Modoc RSA Limited Partnership and Cellco Partnership, both doing

business as Verizon Wireless (referred to collectively as “Verizon”), filed an opposition thereto,

which was joined by several other defendants.1

Defendants object that Mr. Ainslie did not submit a separate proposed complaint in

intervention as required under Rule 24(c), but instead seems to have included his proposed

allegations within the body of the motion. Defendants do not otherwise oppose the motion,

provided the court order that his claims be subject to the court’s previous orders on defendants’

motions to dismiss and subject to the answers already filed to the second amended complaint. 

An applicant for intervention of right under Rule 24(a) must demonstrate that “(1) it has a

significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the

action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the

applicant’s ability to protect its interests; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties

may not adequately represent the applicant's interest.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370

F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b), may be allowed “[u]pon timely

application . . . when [the] applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of

law or fact in common.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). 

Mr. Ainslie does not allege or demonstrate all of these factors to warrant his intervention

as “of right” under Rule 24(a). However, construing his motion liberally as one made pursuant

to Rule 24(b), the court finds that his claims arise from his alleged exposure to and resultant 

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 166 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 4
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

2

 Although Mr. Ainslie failed to attach to his motion a separate pleading setting forth the

claim for which intervention was sought, the court construes the allegations in the motion as

presenting the substance of his proposed complaint for purposes of complying with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24(c). 

3

injuries from RF radiation at the Likely Mountain site.2

 These claims implicate “question[s] of

law and fact in common” with plaintiffs’ claims in the first amended complaint.

Rule 24(b) further provides that “in exercising its discretion the court shall consider

whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the

original parties.”

Because the court has already decided defendants’ previous motions to dismiss, and

dismissed plaintiffs’ ultrahazardous claims, the grant of intervention shall be conditioned on Mr.

Ainslie being subject to all previous rulings in this case. He shall be added as a plaintiff and

shall be bound by the court’s previous rulings in this matter. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S.

605, 615 (1983) (permission to intervene does not carry with it the right to relitigate matters

already determined in the case, unless those matters would otherwise be subject to

reconsideration); see also United States v. School Dist., 367 F. Supp. 198, 201 (D. Neb. 1973)

(allowing permissive intervention provided the intervenors be prohibited from asserting any

defenses or claims previously adjudicated by the court or from reopening any questions

previously decided). Mr. Ainslie has presented no evidence or argument justifying

reconsideration of the court’s previous rulings, and the court binds him to all rulings and orders

previously made in this case. 

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 166 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, Mr. Ainslie’s November 1, 2007, motion to intervene is granted consistent

with this order. The Clerk is directed to add him as a plaintiff and to serve a courtesy copy of

this order on him at his address on file with the court. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 11, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 166 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 4