Motion to Intervene in Arizona

What Is a Motion to Intervene?

Background

“Under Rule 24(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a movant. . . may be permitted to intervene in an action . . . [w]hen an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” (See Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

“A prospective intervenor must have such an interest in the case that the judgment would have a direct legal effect upon his or her rights and not merely a possible or contingent effect.” (See Dowling v. Stapley (2009) 221 Ariz. 251, 270.)

“Permissive intervention is well within the discretion of the trial court, but is nonetheless subject to appellate review.” (See Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra; Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

“It is well settled in Arizona that Rule 24 is remedial and should be liberally construed with the view of assisting parties in obtaining justice and protecting their rights." (See Mitchell v. City of Nogales (1958) 83 Ariz. 328, 333, 320 P.2d 955, 958; Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

“Under this liberal standard, the intervenor-by-permission does not even have to be a person who would have been a proper party at the beginning of the suit. . . ." (See Usery v. Brandel (1980) 87 F.R.D. 670, 677; Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“An order denying a motion to intervene is a substantively appealable order.” (See J.A.R. v. Superior Court (1994) 179 Ariz. 267, 272.)

“Rules 24(a) and 24(b) each provide for intervention [u]pon timely application.” (See William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, (1998) 192 Ariz. 385, 387.)

“It is well settled in Arizona that Rule 24 is remedial and should be liberally construed with the view of assisting parties in obtaining justice and protecting their rights.” (See Allen v. Chon-Lopez (2007) 214 Ariz. 361, 364.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“When determining whether permissive intervention should be granted, the trial court must first decide whether the statutory conditions promulgated in Rule 24(b)(1) or 24(b)(2) have been satisfied.” (See Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

“If any of the conditions for intervention have been satisfied, then the trial court may consider other factors in making its decision:

These relevant factors include the nature and extent of the intervenors' interest, their standing to raise relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the case.” (See Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 552 F.2d at 1329; Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 72.)

“The court may also consider whether changes have occurred in the litigation so that intervention that was once denied should be reexamined, whether the intervenors' interests are adequately represented by other parties, whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented." (See id.)

“[I]n reviewing a denial of intervention, [the court] will accept as true the allegations of the motion." (See Saunders v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa (1973) 109 Ariz. 424, 425, 510 P.2d 740, 741; Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County (1986) 150 Ariz. 68, 74.)

“We review rulings on timeliness of motions to intervene for a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion.” (See William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security (1998) 192 Ariz. 385, 387.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “in the absence of an unconditional statutory right to intervene, the rule governing intervention of right requires that the applicant claim "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and [be] so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest.” (See High School District No. 106 v. Civil Rights Division (1979) 121 Ariz. 444, 445.)

It is also well settled that Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) “does not allow intervention of right where existing parties adequately represent the interest of the proposed intervenor.” (See Heritage Vill. II Homeowners Ass'n v. Norman (2019) 443 P.3d 964, 968.)

Dockets for Motion to Intervene in Arizona

Sort By

Center For Arizona Policy Inc, Et.Al. Vs. Arizona

Filed

Dec 15, 2022

Status

Dismissal

Court

Maricopa County Superior

County

Maricopa County, AZ

Case #