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."