Court Opinion

ID: 9513226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:33:02.360238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:46.906807
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 34] I wholly agree with Justice Neu-mann’s dissenting opinion that Wishnatsky’s protectable interests are like those of existing defendants. There are eight persons named as defendants, each “individually and as officer,” “employee,” or “trustee” of the three named corporate defendants. I write to emphasize that Wishnatsky made no claim the existing individual defendants’ interests, individually or collectively, diverge from his own.
[¶ 35] As Justice Neumann’s opinion clearly explains, an intervenor must show his interests are not adequately represented by existing parties. While this burden is often minimal, if existing parties to the suit have the responsibility of representing the same interest as an intervenor’s, a presumption of adequate representation applies. Chiglo v. City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185 (8th Cir.1997) (city’s residents could not intervene based on city’s decision not to appeal ruling that tobacco ordinance was preempted by the federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act). When an intervenor’s interests coincide with those of existing parties, they presumptively represent his interests. Id. To intervene, a person must be affected in a way significantly different from existing parties. Id. Here, the interests of the individual defendants are quite sufficient to pursue the common religious liberty interest asserted by Wishnatsky under the First Amendment.
[¶ 36] As near as I can tell, Wishnatsky’s asserted “right to receive ministry” is but an expression of his desire to continue the benefit of other peoples’ contributions to his chosen cause — even if those contributions from others may be improperly diverted from the trust accounts of the credit counseling business operated by those contributors. The majority surmises Wishnatsky’s “right to receive ministry” is different than those of his allies because his are “unencumbered by allegations of personal wrongdoing” when compared to each individual defendant’s “personal exposure” that may be “potentially at odds with Wishnatsky’s.” I cannot conceive how the religious interest of a supporter would give that “parishioner” more rights to promote “religious contributions” to the common cause from a regulated business enterprise than those active in the business enterprise itself. That notion would allow all sorts of intervention in all kinds of litigation about political, religious, or social causes, whenever a “true” believer thought he could do a better *532job than the existing litigants on his side. Judicial administration would become unmanageable.
[¶ 37] This intervenor only argues:
Mr. Wishnatsky has no idea how vigorously, if at all, the boards of directors of FLS and HCM will contest this lawsuit. Likewise, they may not raise or contest the issues that he would consider crucial to the outcome of the case. Certainly [they] do not have the particular interest in receiving ministry that he represents.
Wishnatsky does not explain how his particular interest diverges. A proposed intervenor cannot rebut the presumption of representation by merely disagreeing with the legal strategy or objectives of the parties representing the same interest. Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 78 F.3d 1270, 1275-76 (8th Cir. 1996) (class members’ disagreement with class representatives over litigation strategy not sufficient to show inadequate representation). In my opinion, allowing Wishnatsky to intervene will seriously complicate and delay trial of this case, not expedite its just disposition.
[¶ 38] Herbert L. Mesehke