Opinion ID: 2539009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Deny Mat-Su's Motion for Mandatory and Permissive Intervention

Text: Mat-Su argues that Judge White erred in denying its motion to intervene under Civil Rule 24(a) and Civil Rule 24(b). Mat-Su has relied on its status as an assignee, not its status as a lienor, as the sole legal basis for intervention.
Mat-Su argues that it was entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), [41] and that the court therefore erred in denying Mat-Su's motion. Mat-Su contends that it obtained by contract a right to participate in Burkhead's suit and satisfied the technical requirements for mandatory intervention. A movant is entitled to intervene as a matter of right if: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the applicant shows an interest in the subject matter of the action; (3) the applicant shows that this interest may be impaired as a consequence of the action; and (4) the applicant shows that the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party. [42] Mat-Su had no independent cause of action against Voss, as we held above. It also sought to intervene only as an assignee. It did not seek to intervene as a lienor, did not invoke the lien statute, and made no showing that a claim under that statute was ripe. [43] Mat-Su therefore had no legally cognizable interest for the purposes of intervention, [44] and therefore did not satisfy the second requirement for intervention as of right. This makes it unnecessary for us to consider in detail the other requirements for mandatory intervention. We note, however, that Mat-Su has advanced no plausible reason to think either that Burkhead's attorneys could not adequately represent any interest of Mat-Su's relevant to tort issues of liability and damages or that there was any danger Mat-Su's interests would be prejudiced by its nonparticipation. Judge White did not err in denying Mat-Su's motion for intervention under Civil Rule 24(a).
Mat-Su also argues that the superior court erred in denying its motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Mat-Su contends that the superior court incorrectly mutated permissive intervention into stipulated intervention when it considered Burkhead's arguments challenging the validity of the assignment. It also contends that the court should have permitted it to intervene because the parties did not assert that Mat-Su's intervention would cause delay or prejudice. A court may permit intervention under Rule 24(b) [45] upon timely application when the applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact. [46] A court must also determine whether intervention would impair the rights of the original parties by causing undue delay or prejudice. [47] But in cases in which the prospective intervenor raises no new issues, we have established that the most effective and expeditious way to participate is by a brief of amicus curiae and not by intervention. [48] There is no basis for thinking that the superior court abused its discretion in denying Mat-Su's motion for permissive intervention. The superior court appropriately discussed the relevant considerations in deciding the issue. In any event, Mat-Su's exclusive remedy against Voss was provided by the lien statute, and Mat-Su did not demonstrate that its lien rights had been violated or that there was any incipient danger they would be violated. Mat-Su's intervention was unlikely to have raised new issues pertinent to Burkhead's tort claims against Voss, and Judge White did not abuse her discretion in denying Mat-Su's motion for permissive intervention.