Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00146/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00146-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

NATIONAL UNION FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

PITTSBURGH, PA, 

Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant, 

v. 

TRIUMVIRATE, LLC, d/b/a Tordrillo 

Mountain Lodge, et al. 

Defendants and 

Counterclaimants. 

Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG 

ORDER ON MOTION AND MEMORANDUM SEEKING CLARIFICATION 

AND/OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S JANUARY 14, 2024 ORDER 

Before the Court at Docket 169 is non-party David Horvath’s Motion and 

Memorandum Seeking Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the Court’s January 

14, 2024 Order. The Court did not request responses from the parties. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

I. Permissive Intervention Pursuant to Rule 24 

Rule 24(b) allows a district court to permit a movant to intervene 

permissively if the movant “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action 

a common question of law or fact.”1 The Ninth Circuit has held that permissive 

intervention “requires (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely 

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 2 of 7 

motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant’s claim or 

defense and the main action.”2 “If the trial court determines that the initial 

conditions for permissive intervention under rule . . . 24(b)(2) are met, it is then 

entitled to consider other factors in making its discretionary decision on the issue 

of permissive intervention.”3 Relevant additional factors include: 

the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest, their standing to 

raise relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, 

and its probable relation to the merits of the case, . . . whether the 

intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties, 

. . . , and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly 

contribute to . . . the just and equitable adjudication of the legal 

questions presented.4

Ultimately, the decision to allow permissive joinder is discretionary and courts

“must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the

adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”5

II. Reconsideration 

Reconsideration requires “showing of . . . manifest error of the law or fact; 

discovery of new material facts not previously available; or intervening change in 

2 Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations

omitted). The first requirement of an independent jurisdictional ground “does not apply to 

proposed intervenors in federal-question cases when the proposed intervenor is not raising new 

claims.” Id. at 844.

3 Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).

4 Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 42 F.4th 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2022) (citations 

omitted).

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 3 of 7 

the law.”6 A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised 

earlier in the litigation.”7 Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used 

sparingly and in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”8 

DISCUSSION 

Mr. Horvath, a non-party, seeks permissive intervention “on the issue of the 

Court’s January 14, Order as it succinctly relates to the Court’s finding of a ‘single 

unforeseen event’ as it relates to the March 27, 2021 helicopter accident.”9 

Additionally, he requests that the Court reconsider its January 14, 2025 Order on 

Motions for Summary Judgment at Docket 168.

I. Permissive Intervention Is Denied 

Mr. Horvath seeks to intervene permissively in this case pursuant to Rule 

24. He asserts that there are common questions of law and fact between the 

claims in his pending state court matter and this case.

10 He further claims that “the 

District Court’s Order makes clear that it is operating in something of a factual 

6 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(1).

7 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

8 Id. (quotations omitted).

9 Docket 169 at 1.

10 Docket 169 at 12.

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 4 of 7 

vacuum that is clearly impacting its holdings” and seeks to supply additional facts 

and arguments related to Alaska law.11 

 Before a court may consider whether it should exercise its discretion to allow 

intervention, a putative intervenor must show an independent ground for 

jurisdiction and file a timely motion.12 Mr. Horvath has done neither here. The 

Court has diversity jurisdiction in this case, so an independent jurisdictional basis 

is required.13 Mr. Horvath does not offer any independent basis for this Court’s 

jurisdiction. Additionally, Mr. Horvath’s motion to intervene is not timely. Courts 

consider three factors in determining whether a motion for permissive intervention 

is timely: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; 

(2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.14 

“Any substantial lapse of time weighs heavily against intervention.”15 “In the 

context of permissive intervention, . . . [courts] analyze the timeliness element 

more strictly than [they] do with intervention as of right.”16 Mr. Horvath moves to 

intervene in order to supplement the record on summary judgment with additional 

11 Docket 169 at 12.

12 Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 644 F.3d at 843. 

13 Id. at 844.

14 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1303, 1308 (9th Cir. 1997). 

15 United States v. Washington, 86 F.3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

16 League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1308. 

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 5 of 7 

facts more than six months after the briefing on the three motions began, over 

three months after the briefing was complete, and after the Court issued its order.17 

Although he apologizes that “he was not more closely following the above-entitled 

case before the District Court’s recent order,” he offers no reason for this significant 

delay.18 Most importantly, allowing intervention at this time would severely 

prejudice the parties who have spent significant time and resources litigating three 

motions, on which Mr. Horvath now seeks to offer input. For the foregoing reasons, 

Mr. Horvath’s motion to intervene is DENIED. 

II. Reconsideration Is Denied 

Even assuming the Court permitted intervention, Mr. Horvath’s motion for 

reconsideration would fail. As an initial matter, the motion is procedurally infirm, 

which itself would warrant denial. Local Civil Rule 7.1(e) requires that, where a 

party files multiple motions, they must each be filed separately. Here, Mr. Horvath

presents two motions—a motion to intervene and a motion to reconsider—in a 

single motion. Further, Local Civil Rule 7.3(h) also limits motions for 

reconsideration to 5 pages. Mr. Horvath’s motion is 17 pages. 

Putting these procedural issues aside, Mr. Horvath’s motion for 

reconsideration fails on the merits. Reconsideration requires “showing of . . . 

17 See Docket 51 (motion for summary judgment filed July 3, 2024); Docket 97 (SEALED) (reply 

filed September 25, 2024); Docket 168 (Court’s order).

18 Docket 169 at 17.

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 6 of 7 

manifest error of the law or fact; discovery of new material facts not previously 

available; or intervening change in the law.”19 A motion for reconsideration “may 

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 

could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”20 Mr. Horvath does not 

assert any manifest error of law or fact. Instead, he “thinks it is important that the 

Court understand the extrinsic evidence surrounding the undisputed facts of the 

heli ski operators duties and why those extrinsic facts and Alaska case law support 

a modification or reconsideration of the District Court’s holding that what happened 

on March 27, 2021 was a ‘single unforeseen event’ or one occurrence.”21 He then

offers extensive evidence outside the Court’s record and arguments related to 

Alaska tort law.22 Notably, Mr. Horvath’s lengthy memorandum does not contain 

any citation to, nor discussion of, the relevant provisions of the insurance policy at 

issue in this case. 

 Finally, Mr. Horvath does not contend that he recently discovered new 

evidence that warrants reconsideration. Rather, Mr. Horvath seeks to add 

considerable evidence that neither party to this litigation included with their 

summary judgment briefings that was focused on the interpretation of the relevant 

19 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(1).

20 Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945.

21 Docket 169 at 3.

22 Docket 169 at 3–12; see also Dockets 169-1–13 (over 270 pages of exhibits).

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 3:23-cv-00146-SLG, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 

Triumvirate, LLC, et al.

Order on Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration

Page 7 of 7 

insurance policy. The Court’s review of Mr. Horvath’s exhibits confirms that his 

proposed evidence is not newly discovered.23 Accordingly, Mr. Horvath presents 

no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior order. The motion for reconsideration 

is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion at Docket 169 is DENIED. 

Additionally, all of the exhibits attached at Docket 169-1 through 169-13, totaling

over 270 pages, are STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD pursuant to Local Civil Rule 

1.1(b)(8).

DATED this 21st day of January, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

23 See, e.g., Docket 169-1 (Mr. Horvath’s state court filing dated August 13, 2024); Docket 169-2 

(declaration dated March 14, 2018); Docket 169-3 at 1–44 (deposition conducted by Mr. Horvath’s 

attorney in May 2024); Docket 169-4 (deposition conducted by Mr. Horvath’s attorney on June 3, 

2024); Docket 169-5 (deposition conducted by Mr. Horvath’s attorney June 4, 2024). 

Case 3:23-cv-00146-SLG Document 172 Filed 01/21/25 Page 7 of 7