Grizer v. CF Industries, Inc., 3:16-cv-00145

Plaintiff Brad Grizer sued CF Industries and others for injuries allegedly caused by a dropped hammer while working at CF’s plant; case removed to federal court on March 3, 2016 based on diversity jurisdiction.
Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) filed a motion to intervene as a workers’ compensation carrier, alleging it paid indemnity and medical benefits to Grizer and seeks subrogation/reimbursement.
Zurich moved to intervene over a year after removal; no party opposed its intervention motion and trial was scheduled for March 2018.
Under Louisiana law, an employer or insurer who pays workers’ compensation must intervene in an employee’s suit against third-party tortfeasors to preserve reimbursement rights.
Zurich’s proposed intervention would align it with Plaintiff and, because Zurich shares citizenship with some CF defendants, its joinder would destroy complete diversity.
The magistrate judge found Zurich an intervenor of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), concluded the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Zurich under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), and recommended dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) because Zurich is a required but non-joinder-feasible party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of intervention	Zurich’s motion (filed ~1 year after removal) is timely given lack of opposition and trial date	CF Defendants did not oppose timeliness	Court: Intervention timely under Stallworth factors
Right to intervene under Rule 24(a)	Zurich has a statutory/subrogation interest from paying benefits and will be prejudiced if excluded	Defendants did not dispute insurer’s subrogation interest	Court: Zurich is an intervenor of right under Rule 24(a)(2)
Alignment and effect on diversity jurisdiction	Zurich seeks reimbursement and thus aligns with Plaintiff, but is non-diverse with CF defendants	CF Defendants’ citizenship means Zurich would destroy diversity	Court: Zurich aligns with Plaintiff; §1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over Zurich’s claims, so adding Zurich would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction
Rule 19 required-party analysis and remedy	Zurich argues it is a necessary party and, because joinder destroys diversity, case should be dismissed	CF Defendants did not brief Rule 19; Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal	Court: Zurich is a required party whose joinder is not feasible; recommends dismissal without prejudice under Rule 19(b) rather than permitting joinder or remand

Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977) (timeliness of intervention evaluated from all circumstances)
McDonald v. E.J. Lavino, 430 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1970) (timeliness of intervention rests in court’s discretion)
Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) (sets four-factor test for intervention timeliness)
Ford v. City of Huntsville, 242 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2))
Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) (corporate citizenship requires state of incorporation and principal place of business)
Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (§1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction for plaintiff-intervenors who destroy diversity)