United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
DEAVERS MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors', American Family Mutual Insurance
Company (“American Family”) and Nationwide
Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Nationwide
Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively,
“Nationwide”), Motions to Intervene. (ECF Nos.
64, 65). For the following reasons, proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motions are hereby
M.A., alleges she was trafficked for sex at several Days Inn
by Wyndham, Comfort Inn, and Crowne Plaza locations in
Columbus. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 51). Plaintiff seeks to hold
these hotels liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §
1595(a). M.A. alleges that the hotel Defendants knew or
should have known her trafficking was happening on their
properties. She points to behavior that she alleges hotel
staff should have recognized as signs of her trafficking.
M.A. alleges that these hotels and their parent companies did
not take adequate measures to prevent human trafficking. On
October 7, 2019, this Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (ECF No. 136).
2019, American Family and Nationwide filed Motions to
Intervene. American Family is the purported liability insurer
for Defendants Krrish Lodging, LLC and Wyndham Hotels and
Resorts, Inc. (ECF No. 64 at 3). Nationwide is the insurer
for Columbus Hospitality LLC, dba “Crowne Plaza
Columbus - Downtown, an IHG Hotel”
(“Columbus”) and InterContinental Hotels
Corporation (“IHC”). (ECF No. 65 at 5). Both
Movants argue they must be permitted to intervene as of right
in order adequately to protect their interests.
Alternatively, they argue the Court should exercise its
discretion to grant permissive intervention.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Family and Nationwide both bring motions to intervene as of
right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or, in the
alternative, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) requires a timely
motion by a movant who:
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.
must establish all elements of the four-part test, requiring:
(1) that the motion was filed timely; (2) that a substantial
legal interest is involved; (3) that an interest will be
impaired without intervention; and (4) inadequate
representation by the current parties. Michigan
State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245
(6th Cir.1997) (citing Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v.
Tracy, 6 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir.1993)).
intervention under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1) permits a court to
exercise its discretion to allow intervention on a timely
motion by a movant who “has a claim or defense that
shares with the main action a common question of law or
fact.” If the motion is timely and there is at least
one common question of law or fact, the Court consider
whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to
the original parties, and any other relevant factors. J4
Promotions, Inc. v. Splash Dogs, LLC, No. 2:09-CV-136,
2010 WL 1839036, at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 3, 2010) (citing
Miller, 103 F.3d at 1248).
LAW & ANALYSIS