1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF DELTA TOWING, )

LLC, AS OWNER OF THE M/V DELTA )

AMBER, AND DELTA MARINE SERVICE, )

INC., AS PURPORTED OWNER, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00128-KD-M

BROKER, CHARTERER, OR PRO HAC )

VICE OWNER OF THE M/V DELTA )

AMBER, FOR EXONERATION FROM )

OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. )

MIKE HOOKS, INC., and )

GULF COAST MARINE, LLC, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00136-KD-N

)

DELTA TOWING, LLC and )

DELTA MARINE SERVICES, INC. )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

BILLY LEE, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00295-KD-N

)

MIKE HOOKS, INC., OWNER OF THE )

M/V NICHOLAS, in personam. )

)

DEFENDANT. )

IN THE MATTER OF MIKE HOOKS, )

INC., AS OWNER OF THE M/V )

NICHOLAS, PETITIONING FOR ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00330-KD-B

EXONERATION FROM, OR )

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. )

ORDER 

This action is before the Court on Gulf Coast Marine, LLC’s (“Gulf Coast Marine”) motion 

to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). (Doc. 47). This litigation arises out of the capsizing 

and sinking of the dredge tender NICHOLAS, and the tug DELTA AMBER. The NICHOLAS was 

Case 1:15-cv-00128-KD-M Document 79 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 3
2

owned and operated by Mike Hooks, Inc., and the DELTA AMBER was owned and operated by 

Delta Towing, LLC and Delta Marine Services, Inc.

Gulf Coast Marine seeks to intervene in Billy Lee v. Mike Hooks, Inc., Owner of the M/V 

NICHOLAS, in personam, 15-CV-00295-KD-N (S.D. Ala. 2015), which was previously consolidated

with several other related cases. (See Doc. 50). Billy Lee is the sole plaintiff, and Mike Hooks, Inc. is 

the sole defendant in 15-CV-00295-KD-N. (Doc. 30 at 1). Movant Gulf Coast Marine, identifies 

itself as the issuer of a policy of Hull and Protection and Indemnity Insurance to Defendant Mike 

Hooks, Inc. (Doc. 47 at 1). 

Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a third party moving for 

intervention of right show: (1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he has an interest relating to 

the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that disposition of 

the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) his 

interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit. Huff v. Comm'r of IRS, 743 

F.3d 790, 795 (11th Cir. 2014)(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Even if Gulf Coast Marine has a legally recognizable interest, it has not established that its 

“interest” is not adequately represented by the Defendant Mike Hooks, Inc. Mike Hooks, Inc. and 

Gulf Coast Marine’s interests are identical: to defend against Mike Hooks, Inc.’s potential liability in 

this matter. As the Middle District of Alabama has explained:

The requirement that an intervenor not be adequately represented by existing parties 

“is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’ 

inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.” 

Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10, 92 S.Ct. 630, 636 n. 10, 

30 L.Ed.2d 686 (1972). “However ‘minimal’ this burden may be, it cannot be treated 

as so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule.” Bush, 740 F.2d 

at 355. “ ‘When the party seeking intervention has the same ultimate objective as a 

party to the suit, a presumption arises that its interests are adequately represented, 

against which the petitioner must demonstrate adversity of interest, collusion, or 

nonfeasance.’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Electric 

Corp., 542 F.2d 214, 216 (4th Cir.1976)) (intervening citations omitted). The party 

seeking intervention must “contribute” something to the “lawsuit beyond underlining 

the positions already taken” by the current parties. Bush, 740 F.2d at 357.

Case 1:15-cv-00128-KD-M Document 79 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Wyatt By & Through Rawlins v. Hanan, 170 F.R.D. 189, 192 (M.D. Ala. 1995). Further, the Eleventh 

Circuit has held:

We will find that representation is adequate if no collusion is shown between the 

representative and an opposing party, if the representative does not have or represent 

an interest adverse to the proposed intervenor, and if the representative does not fail 

in fulfillment of his duty...This court will presume that a proposed intervenor’s 

interest is adequately represented when an existing party pursues the same ultimate 

objective as the party seeking intervention.

Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 215 (11th Cir. 

1993)(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Accordingly, as Gulf Coast Marine has not made a showing that any interest it may have is 

not adequately represented by current Defendant Mike Hooks, Inc., the motion to intervene (Doc. 47) 

is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2015. 

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00128-KD-M Document 79 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3