Great American Life Insurance Company v. Tanner, 3:16-cv-00070

Great American filed an interpleader to determine the proper recipient of two annuities issued to Don Mitchell after his death; Ava, Alita, and Craig are parties in the case.
Ava asserted crossclaims alleging Alita and Craig exerted undue influence over Don to divert assets (bank CD, life policy, two Great American annuities, oil interest) away from his daughters.
Phyllis Mitchell Fernandez moved to intervene, claiming beneficiary interests in a trust, Prudential policy, and the Great American annuities; she sought to join as a plaintiff in Ava’s crossclaim.
Phyllis filed no memorandum brief as required by the Northern District of Mississippi Local Rule 7(b)(4), and her filings omitted explanation of which Rule 24 subsection she relied on and factual/legal bases for claimed interests.
Alita and Craig opposed intervention, arguing Phyllis was never a named annuity beneficiary, the other asset claims fall outside the interpleader’s subject, and the court lacks jurisdiction over estate administration.
The court denied Phyllis’s motion to intervene without prejudice for failure to comply with the local-rule memorandum requirement and for failing to establish the Rule 24 factors, and gave 14 days to refile complying with local rules and addressing Rule 24 elements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural compliance with Local Rule 7(b)(4)	Phyllis filed motion to intervene (no brief)	Alita/Craig asked for waiver but opposed intervention on merits	Motion denied without prejudice for failure to file required memorandum brief
Proper Rule 24 avenue (24(a) v 24(b))	Phyllis impliedly sought intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2) claiming interest in annuities and other assets	Alita/Craig said Phyllis was not a named beneficiary and other asset claims are beyond this action	Court required Phyllis to specify which subsection of Rule 24 she relies on on refiling
Sufficiency of asserted interest in subject property	Phyllis claimed beneficiary interest in trust, Prudential policy, and annuities	Alita/Craig argued Phyllis never was a named annuity beneficiary and claims do not arise from interpleader subject matter	Court found Phyllis failed to specify factual/legal bases for claimed interests; required more detail on refiling
Demonstrating impairment/inadequate representation/timeliness under Rule 24(a)	Phyllis asserted complete relief cannot be granted without her; implied inadequate representation	Alita/Craig contended existing parties and pleadings control scope and Phyllis’s claims aren’t within this action	Court held Phyllis failed to address why disposition would impair her interests, why representation is inadequate, and timeliness; these deficiencies preclude intervention of right as pleaded

Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 835 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2016) (lists four requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a))
Edwards v. City of Hous., 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry is flexible; failure to satisfy any requirement precludes intervention of right)
Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014) (movant bears burden to establish right to intervene; Rule 24 construed liberally)
Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2015) (court may accept movant’s factual allegations as true when considering intervention, but not conclusory allegations)
Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) (failure to meet any Rule 24 requirement bars intervention of right)
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court accepts non-conclusory factual allegations in support of intervention)
Lake Inv’rs Dev. Grp. v. Egidi Dev. Grp., 715 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir. 1983) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations when considering intervention)