Professional Membership
Bankruptcy | Case Law | Rule 24 Intervention
RULE 24–INTERVENTION
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002)
For permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b), all that is necessary is that the intervener's
claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.
In re Bernal, 207 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2000)
Assignee of note’s motion to intervene properly denied, where default was entered against
assignor. Assignee’s sole remedy was to move for substitution under Rule 25(c).
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999)
"[T]he requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) may be broken down into four elements, each of
which must be demonstrated in order to provide a non-party with a right to intervene: (1) the
application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a 'significantly protectable' interest relating
to the transaction that is the subject of the litigation; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the
disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to
protect its interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties
before the court."