Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. University of Utah

United States District Court, D. Utah

December 14, 2017

DAVE ANDERSON, BRYAN FLAKE, SPENCER HOGUE, JIM JACKETTA, MATT OGLESBY, BRITT MILLER, JESSICA PRATHER, MARK SCHAEFER, & JIM STONE, as TRUSTEES OF THE UTAH-IDAHO TEAMSTERS SECURITY FUND, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING KYLE MIXON'S MOTION TO INTERVENE

         This matter is before the Court on Kyle Mixon's (Mixon) Motion to Intervene. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Mixon's Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Utah-Idaho Teamsters Security Fund, which covers the benefit plan at issue (the “Plan”); a self-funded “employee welfare benefit plan” as defined in 29 U.S.C. §1002(1) and covered under the Employee Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1003(a).

         On September 28, 2014, Mixon, a beneficiary of the Plan, was injured in an accident involving Patricia Headley (“Headley”). Mixon was treated by Defendant, University of Utah Hospital, and the Plan paid all of the covered claims submitted by Defendant, totaling more than $300, 000.

         Following proceedings brought by Mixon against Headley, Headley's insurance company, Farmers Insurance Company (“Farmers”), has agreed to pay $100, 000 in insurance policy limits to settle Mixon's claims against Headley. Plaintiffs and Defendant both claim an interest in the $100, 000, but Farmers will not disburse the $100, 000 until a determination is made as to who has first rights.

         Due to these disagreements and Farmers' reluctance to distribute the $100, 000 until a judgment is given, Plaintiffs filed this action requesting a declaration that:

(1) the Utah Hospital Lien Statute and Defendant's Amended Hospital Lien filed pursuant thereto ‘relate to' the Security Fund and are contrary to and interfere with Plaintiffs' subrogation rights under the Trust Agreement, and are therefore expressly preempted pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a);
(2) Plaintiffs' subrogation rights as set forth in the Trust Agreement are not subject to the Utah Hospital Lien Statute or the Amended Hospital Lien Statute or the Amended Hospital Lien and such subrogation rights have priority over any interest or claim Defendant may assert under the Amended Hospital Lien in the amount of $100, 000.[1]

         Defendant responded with a Motion to Dismiss and Mixon subsequently filed his Motion to Intervene.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Intervention as a Matter of Right

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a movant may intervene as a matter of right or through permissive intervention. There are two situations which allow a movant to intervene as a matter of right. The first is when a movant “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute, ”[2] and the second is when a movant satisfies four requirements.[3]

         There is no federal statute granting Mixon the right to intervene, so Mixon may only intervene as a matter of right if: “(1) the application is timely; (2) the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant's interest may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the applicant's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.”[4] These “factors . . . are intended to capture the circumstances in which the practical effect on the prospective intervenor justifies its participation in the litigation, and those factors are not rigid, technical requirements.”[5]

         In this case, it is undisputed that Mixon's Motion is timely, so the Court moves to the next step of the analysis and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.