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.

Castoro & Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 22, 2014

CASTORO & CO., INC., Plaintiff,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC., SENTRY INSURANCE CO. and JOHN DOE I-X (being fictitious persons), and XYZ CORP. I-X (being fictitious Corporations), Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DOUGLAS E. ARPERT, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion by Capitol Environmental Services, Inc. ("Capitol") for leave to Intervene in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and (b) [dkt. no. 6]. Defendants Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company ("Hartford") and Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company ("Sentry") have opposed this Motion [dkt. nos. 13 and 12]. For the reasons set forth below, Capitol's Motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts of this dispute are well known to the parties and need not be repeated at length. Briefly, this matter arises out of Plaintiff Castoro & Co., Inc.'s ("Castoro") action seeking a Declaratory Judgment regarding Hartford's and Sentry's obligations under separate insurance policies issued to Castoro. See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint at p. 10, dkt. entry no. 5. In dispute is whether the policies issued to Castoro require Hartford and/or Sentry to defend and indemnify Castoro in connection with environmental contamination at Castoro's property in West Windsor, New Jersey. Id . Capitol performed environmental remediation services for Castoro on the property in 2013. See Capitol's Memorandum of Law ("Memo") at p. 3. Capitol was partially paid by Castoro but is still owed $306, 224.60. Id . According to Capitol, "[d]isposition of the action without Capitol's participation may impede its collection efforts." See Memo at p. 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, in pertinent part, provides:

(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

In the Third Circuit, a litigant seeking intervention as of right must establish: (1) a timely application to intervene; (2) a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) a threat that the interest will be impaired or affected, as a practical matter by disposition of the action; and (4) inadequate representation of the applicant's interest by existing parties to litigation. Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Service , 157 F.3d 964, 969 (3d Cir. 1998). Each requirement must be met in order to intervene as of right. Id . A party seeking permissive intervention must establish: (1) a timely application for intervention; (2) a common question of law or fact; and (3) the intervention does not unduly delay or ...


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.