Opinion ID: 1433939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court Erred In Denying the Unions' Motion to Intervene.[24]

Text: Finally, we consider whether the superior court erred in denying the Unions' motions to intervene. The superior court stated that it denied the motions because it did not feel that the individual unions were indispensable parties to this declaratory judgment action, nor that their presence was necessary to resolve the issues before it. We apply a four-part test to determine whether a motion to intervene as of right should be granted: (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must show an interest in the subject matter of the action; (3) it must be shown that this interest may be impaired as a consequence of the action; and (4) it must be shown that the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party. State v. Weidner, 684 P.2d 103, 113 (Alaska 1984). Lampkin argues that the Unions' motions to intervene were not timely, that the Unions had no interest in the subject matter of the action, and that the Unions' interests were adequately represented by the Borough. We conclude that the Unions' motions were timely filed. The Unions moved to intervene in federal court approximately one week after the complaint was filed. They brought their motions to the attention of the state superior court on the day that court received the certificate of remand from the federal court. Lampkin's argument that the Unions should have filed earlier with the state court ignores that fact that the state court apparently did not have jurisdiction of the case prior to receiving the certified copy of the order remanding the case from federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (1994) (stating that when the federal district court remands to state court [a] certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the clerk to the clerk of the State court and the State court may thereupon proceed with such case). Indeed, the only reason that the motions to intervene might be considered untimely was the speed with which the trial court conducted the litigation, moving from complaint to trial in little more than two weeks. The quick scheduling of these proceedings, even if timed to accommodate the interests of Lampkin and the Borough, should not be held against the Unions. We also conclude that the Unions had a direct interest in the subject matter of the action. Lampkin, relying on Weidner, contends that the interest of the Unions was contingent and therefore did not justify intervention as of right. In Weidner, we stated that the requisite interest for intervention as a matter of right must be direct, substantial, and significantly protectable. 684 P.2d at 113. In that case, we considered a motion to intervene in an action challenging the legality of a land lottery by the winners of the lottery. See id. at 106-07. The superior court had issued an interlocutory order permitting the lottery to be conducted in the interest of administrative efficiency and convenience, but specifically ordered that no interest or title would vest in the lottery winners pending the outcome of [the] litigation. Id. at 113. After the lottery, the winners moved to intervene on all counts, and the superior court denied the motion except as to one count. See id. The lottery winners appealed, and we affirmed, holding that the interest of the lottery winners was a contingent interest insufficient to justify intervention as of right. Id. Lampkin is correct that the PLA did not become an executed bargaining agreement until the successful bidder signed it. However, the Unions' interest in the PLA is broader than merely their contractual right to enforce the terms of the PLA and thus is distinguishable from the interest at issue in Weidner. The lottery winners in Weidner took their interest after the litigation in which they sought to intervene had begun and were thus on notice of the contingent nature of their interest prior to obtaining it. The Unions, on the other hand, participated in negotiating the PLA and were not merely beneficiaries of a challenged administrative process. Their stake in the implementation of the PLA, arising during their negotiation of the PLA and thus prior to Lampkin's challenge, was as direct, substantial, and significantly protectable as the Borough's. Therefore, the Unions' interest was sufficient to warrant intervention. Finally, we determine that this interest was not adequately represented by the Borough. As the Unions point out, Lampkin's claim that the interests of the Borough and the Unions were identical is inconsistent with the fact that the PLA was a product of negotiations between the two entities. Clearly, the Borough's interest in preserving the PLA, and hence the concessions on wages, hours, and working conditions it had won, did not coincide with the Unions' interest in protecting other provisions of the agreement. This divergence in interests is demonstrated by the Borough's failure to appeal the superior court's decision to modify the Fringe Benefits Provision, a provision of considerable importance to the Unions on appeal. Therefore, we hold that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the Unions' motion to intervene as of right. The court's ruling unfairly denied the Unions a full opportunity to defend their substantial interest in the PLA.