Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08014/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08014-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action

---

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mary Lou Boone; Evelyn James; Henry

Whiskers; Clyde Whiskers; Danlyn

James; May Preston; Natalie Edgewater;

Nathaniel King; Edith King; Thomas

Secody; Lee Choe; Jack Owl, Sr.; and

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-8014-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) commenced this action on

January 28, 2008, by filing a complaint for interpleader against Defendants. Dkt. #1.

Several Defendants have answered the complaint. Dkt. ##23, 28. A Case Management

Conference is set for August 15, 2008. Dkt. #44.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) and Defendants have filed a joint motion for

leave to permit Chase to intervene as a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #40. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. For reasons stated

below, the Court will grant the motion.

A court may grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) if the movant provides

an independent basis for jurisdiction, the motion is timely, and the movant’s claims or

defenses have a question of law or fact in common with the main action. See Fed. R. Civ.

Case 3:08-cv-08014-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

P. 24(b)(1)(A); Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1989). Even when these

requirements are satisfied, permissive intervention is a matter within the sound discretion of

the district court. See Venegas, 867 F.2d at 530; Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313

F.3d 1094, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “In exercising its discretion, the court must consider

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

original parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); see Kootenai Tribe, 313 F.3d at 1111 n.10.

In this case, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Chase’s proposed complaint, see

Dkt. #40-2 at 4, and the motion to intervene is timely, see N.W. Forest Res. Council, 82 F.3d

825, 836-37 (9th Cir. 1996). Wells Fargo’s complaint and Chase’s proposed complaint

allege common issues of law and fact. See Dkt. ##1, 40-2 at 3-6. The Court concludes that

permitting Chase to intervene as a plaintiff will not unduly delay the case or prejudice the

parties. See River Runners for Wilderness v. Alston, No. CV-06-0894-PCT-DGC, 2006 WL

2971495, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2006). The Court accordingly will grant the parties’ joint

motion.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties’ joint motion for leave to permit JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to

intervene as a plaintiff (Dkt. #40) is granted.

2. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall file the proposed complaint (Dkt. #40-2

at 3-6) by August 8, 2008.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08014-DGC Document 46 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2