Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00039/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00039-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF KYLE PRYZSIECKI,

by and through its administrators,

MICHAEL PRYZSIECKI and VENUS

ANGELIQUE HISAW; MICHAEL

PRYZSIECKI, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

SHANNON DUANE EIFERT; COUNTY

OF IMPERIAL; IMPERIAL COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; UNITED

STATES; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

RECREATION; CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY PATROL; and DOES 1-50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the “Motion to Join as Intervenor as Matter of Right

by Plaintiff Venus Angelique Hisaw, as an individual Plaintiff, and as co-administrator of

the estate of Kyle Pryzsiecki.” (Doc. # 46). 

Background

This action arises out of the death of Kyle Pryzsiecki, a 15 year old minor who 

was killed in a motor vehicle collision. On January 5, 2007, the law firm of Avila & Peros,

LLP, on behalf of the Estate of Kyle Pryzsiecki (“Estate”), by and through its

administrators Michael Pryzsiecki and Venus Angelique Hisaw, and Michael Pryzsiecki, an

Case 3:07-cv-00039-WQH-RBB Document 53 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 On October 30, 2007, Defendant the United States filed a Response in Opposition to the

Motion to Intervene. (Doc. # 47). However, the United States did not oppose the merits of the Motion;

it opposed the Motion on grounds that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the

United States. The United States’ Response is moot because on November 2, 2007, the Court

dismissed all claims against the United States in this action. (Doc. # 49). 

- 2 - 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

individual, filed a complaint against Shannon Duane Eifert, County of Imperial, Imperial

County Sheriff’s Department, the United States Bureau of Land Management, the State of

California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Highway Patrol, and Does 1-

50. (Doc. # 1). The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises

liability, (3) deprivation of civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, (4) wrongful

death, in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, and (5) survival,

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20. The complaint seeks

special and compensatory damages to be awarded to the Estate and to Plaintiff Michael

Pryzsiecki as an individual. 

On October 29, 2007, Hisaw, proceeding pro se, filed the “Motion to Join as

Intervenor as a Matter of Right by Plaintiff Venus Angelique Hisaw, as an individual

Plaintiff, and as co-administrator of the estate of Kyle Pryzsiecki” (“Motion to Intervene”),

pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 46). Hisaw seeks

to intervene in the action as an individual Plaintiff and as co-administrator of the Estate. 

Hisaw contends that the Motion to Intervene was timely filed; that the adjudication of the

Estate will affect her interests as co-administrator of the Estate and as an individual

Plaintiff; and that the existing parties to the action do not adequately represent her interests. 

Mot. for Intervenor, p. 5-7. Hisaw asserts that a legal conflict exists between her and

Plaintiff Michael Pryzsiecki based upon the likelihood of a dispute amongst them regarding

the distribution of any damages awarded in this action. Id. at 6-7. 

Defendants do not oppose the Motion to Intervene.1

Applicable Law

Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action 

. . . (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question

of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall

Case 3:07-cv-00039-WQH-RBB Document 53 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 - 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication

of the rights of the original parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. § 24(a). To intervene as of right under Rule 24(a), the proposed intervenor

must show 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 interest; (3) the

application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the

applicant’s interest.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F. 3d 391, 397 (9th Cir.

2002). “The court interprets [Rule 24] broadly in favor of intervention.” Forest

Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 Timeliness is a threshold requirement for intervention as of right. United States v.

Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts weigh three factors when determining

the timeliness of a motion to intervene: “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which the

applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the

length of the delay.” Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty

Project, 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). The requirement that the proposed

intervenor have a significant protectable interest relating to the subject of the action is

generally satisfied if (1) “the interest is protected by law;” and (2) “there is a relationship

between the legally protected interest and the plaintiff’s claims.” United States v. Alisal

Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). The requirement that the disposition of

the action impair the proposed intervenor’s interest is generally satisfied “[i]f an absentee

would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an

action.” Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir.

2001). Finally, courts weigh three factors in determining the adequacy of representation:

“(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a

proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to

make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary

elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324

F.3d 1078, 1087 (9th Cir. 2003). This requirement is “satisfied if the applicant shows that

Case 3:07-cv-00039-WQH-RBB Document 53 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

the representation of his interest may be adequate; and the burden of making that showing

should be treated as minimal.” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10

(1972) (internal quotations omitted). 

Ruling of the Court

Hisaw moves to intervene “as an individual Plaintiff, and as co-administrator of the

Estate.” Mot. To Intervene, p. 3. The Motion to Intervene was timely filed. The Court

finds that Hisaw, in her individual capacity, has a significant protectable interest relating to

the subject of the action because she may be legally entitled to a portion of any damages

awarded. The Court further finds that the outcome of this suit may impair Hisaw’s ability

to protect her interest as an individual Plaintiff because she may be precluded from raising

any issues or claims adjudicated in this action in a subsequent action. Finally, the Court

finds that the existing parties may not adequately represent Hisaw’s interests as an

individual Plaintiff because her interests may be adverse to those of individual Plaintiff

Michael Pryzsiecki with regard to the allocation of any award to which they are legally

entitled. The Court concludes that Hisaw’s intervention in this action as an individual

Plaintiff representing herself pro se is appropriate. 

The complaint, filed by the law firm Avila & Peros, LLP, specifically names both

Hisaw and Michael Pryzsiecki as administrators of the Estate. Furthermore, the caption in

every pleading filed in this case names both Hisaw and Michael Pryzsiecki as

administrators of the Estate. See e.g., Doc. # 1, 16, 28, 33. The Court concludes that

Hisaw’s Motion to Intervene as co-administrator of the Estate is moot because Hisaw is

already a party to this action as the co-administrator of the Estate, represented by the law

firm Avila & Peros, LLP. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Join as Intervenor as Matter of Right

by Plaintiff Venus Angelique Hisaw (Doc. # 46), as an individual Plaintiff representing

herself pro se is GRANTED, and as co-administrator of the estate of Kyle Pryzsiecki,

represented by the law firm Avila & Peros, LLP is DENIED as moot. The parties to this

action are as follows: (1) the Estate of Kyle Pryzsiecki, by and through its administrators

Case 3:07-cv-00039-WQH-RBB Document 53 Filed 12/04/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 07cv39 WQH (RBB)

Michael Pryzsiecki and Venus Angelique Hisaw, represented by the law firm Avila &

Peros, LLP, (2) Michael Pryzsiecki, an individual, represented by the law firm Avila &

Peros, LLP, and (3) Venus Angelique Hisaw, representing herself pro se. 

DATED: December 4, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00039-WQH-RBB Document 53 Filed 12/04/07 Page 5 of 5