Opinion ID: 2544926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Denial of Intervention Was a Final Appealable Order.

Text: The denial of an intervention motion is a final appealable order for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction. [7] But the Kritz appellees argue that the superior court's order was not final under Alaska Appellate Rule 202(a) because the superior court reserved the power to modify its decision in further proceedings. [8] When determining whether an order is final we focus on practicality: the judgment must dispose of the entire case, end the litigation, and leave nothing for the court to do. [9] We look to the substance and effect, rather than form, of the rendering court's judgment, and focus primarily on the operational or `decretal' language therein. [10] And when an order is ambiguous we look to its substantial effect. [11] A party's ability to seek post-judgment review may determine whether an order on a motion to intervene is appealable. [12] The superior court's order here prevents both movants from participating as parties. They cannot seek post-judgment review of any of the superior court's findings or conclusions. They cannot engage in full discovery or file their own motions. Even though the superior court's order states that the organizations may seek leave to participate in other ways, upon a showing of necessity, the substantial effect of that order limits their participation to that of amici curiae. This requires them to seek permission to act and prevents them from enjoying a party's full slate of procedural rights. And even though the order was without prejudice, movants may only refile their intervention motion if circumstances change. By then movants might already be prejudiced by their inability to participate in discovery or pretrial matters. We conclude that the superior court's order is final and appealable and therefore that we have jurisdiction to review the order.