0:21-cv-60462
S.D. Fla.Apr 5, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs CCUR Aviation Finance, LLC and CCUR Holdings, Inc. sued South Aviation, Inc. and Federico A. Machado on March 1, 2021 for fraud and breach of contract arising from escrow-backed aircraft financing agreements and allegedly unpaid deposit repayments due January 15, 2021.
- WBIP Aviation One LLC and WBIP Aviation Two LLC (Intervenors) moved to permissively intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) on March 12, 2021, and filed a proposed complaint alleging nearly identical facts and claims as Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs do not oppose intervention; Defendants did not file a response to the Motion.
- The Court reviewed Rule 24(b) standards: timeliness, common question of law or fact, and absence of undue prejudice or delay, and noted the liberal construction of the "claim or defense" requirement.
- The Court found the Motion timely, that the intervenors’ claims share common legal and factual questions with the main action, and that intervention would not prejudice or delay the original parties.
- The Court granted permissive intervention and ordered Intervenors to refile their proposed complaint by April 9, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive intervention standard (timeliness and common question) | Intervenors filed promptly and their claims share common questions with Plaintiffs | Defendants did not respond | Granted: motion timely and common questions present |
| Prejudice or delay to existing parties | Intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay adjudication | No opposition filed | Granted: no undue prejudice or delay |
| Sufficiency of intervenor's interest | Intervenors assert substantially identical claims to Plaintiffs | No opposition | Permissive intervention permissible under liberal "claim or defense" standard |
| Court's discretionary authority | Factors (timeliness, common issues, no prejudice) favor intervention | No response | Court exercised discretion to permit intervention and ordered refiling of proposed complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) (timeliness and common-question test for permissive intervention)
- Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999) (broad discretion in granting or denying intervention)
- In re Estelle, 516 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1975) (liberal construction of the "claim or defense" requirement)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. U.S. Realty & Imp. Co., 310 U.S. 434 (U.S. 1940) (intervention does not require a direct personal or pecuniary interest)
- Alexander v. Hall, 64 F.R.D. 152 (D.S.C. 1974) (intervenor must demonstrate more than a general interest)
- Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Props., Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005) (intervention inappropriate if it unduly prejudices or delays)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (Eleventh Circuit adopted pre-October 1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding precedent)