Opinion
Case No. A1-03-55
May 22, 2003
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE OF MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SECURIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
Before the Court is a Motion to Intervene filed by Minnesota Life Insurance Company ("Minnesota Life") and Securian Financial Services, Inc. ("SFS") pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Minnesota Life and SFS seek intervention of right under Rule 24(a), or, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Minnesota Life and SFS contend that their attempt to intervene is appropriate given the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. They also contend that the language of the Court's Temporary Restraining Order, which was issued on May 13, 2003, as well as the language of the Plaintiffs' proposed injunction warrants their intervention.
Paragraph 21 of the Complaint alleges in part that "ultimately Montgomery and Minnesota Life seek to gain — through their hiring of experienced Prudential agents — access to Prudential's proprietary client list and confidential and sensitive information entrusted to Prudential by out clients."
Whether a person is entitled to intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) is a question of law. United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158 (8th Cir. 1995). Rule 24(a)(2) permits a party to intervene "when [upon timely application] the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). This rule is generally construed liberally and all doubts are resolved in favor of the parties seeking to intervene. United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158.
A party seeking to intervene must, in addition to filing a timely application, satisfy the following three part test: (1) the party must have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (2) that interest must be one that might be impaired by the disposition of the litigation; and (3) the interest must not be adequately protected by the existing parties. Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 78 F.3d 1270, 1274 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1160-61; Kansas Pub. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Reimer Koger Associates, Inc., 60 F.3d 1304, 1307 (8th Cir. 1995); Arrow v. Gambler's Supply, Inc., 55 F.3d 407, 409 (8th Cir. 1995); Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994 997 (8th Cir. 1993).
Whether a motion to intervene is timely is determined by considering all the circumstances of the case. See United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1158-59. "In determining timeliness, three factors that bear particular consideration are the reason for any delay by the proposed intervenor in seeking intervention, how far the litigation has progressed before the motion to intervene is filed, and how much prejudice the delay in seeking intervention may cause to other parties if intervention is allowed." See United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1159.
The Court finds that Minnesota Life's and SFS's motion to intervene is timely. There is no issue of delay as the motion to intervene was filed approximately one week after the suit itself was filed. Further, there is no prejudice to the Plaintiffs by allowing intervention. See United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1159 ("The question for determining the timeliness of the motion to intervene is whether existing parties may be prejudiced by the delay in moving to intervene, not whether the intervention itself will cause the nature, duration, or disposition of the lawsuit to change").
Turning next to the three part test, the Court finds that Minnesota Life and SFS have demonstrated an interest in this matter as it implicates the manner in which they conduct their business, including their right to recruit and contract agents as well as registered representatives and they have a sufficient stake in this action. Finally, the Court concludes that the interests of Minnesota Life and SFS are inadequately represented by the existing parties as their interests in this action are sufficiently different from those of Montgomery.
The Court finds that Minnesota Life and SFS have met the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Minnesota Life's and SFS's Motion to Intervene (Docket No. 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.