Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arnold v. Miller

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


July 21, 2008

ARTHUR ARNOLD, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL ARNOLD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MILLER, D/B/A MILLER SAFETY & FIRST AID PRODUCTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Applicant's Motion to Intervene. (Doc. 54). On its face, the instant matter seems appropriate for intervention pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24(a)(2), which grants intervention as of right when the Applicant "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties."

Applicant is Tower Maintenance & Erection Corporation ("Tower Maintenance"). Decedent, Daniel Arnold, was employed as a tower erector at Tower Maintenance. Tower Maintenance claims that it has a worker's compensation subrogation interest in this matter. Under Illinois law, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/5 grants Tower Maintenance an interest related to the outcome of this action. Furthermore, as of this date, the only party that has responded to Tower Maintenance's motion to intervene is Defendant Elk River, who filed a response in support of the motion. No other party has responded; in addition, the time to respond has expired. Pursuant to LOCAL RULE 7.1(g), the Court considers this failure an admission of the merits of the motion.*fn1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Applicant's Motion to Intervene (Doc. 54). Applicant will now be referred to as "Plaintiff-Intervenor." Parties are directed to provide Tower Maintenance notice of any and all proceedings in this case. Now that the motion to intervene has been granted, Tower Maintenance's Intervenor Complaint (Doc. 55) is deemed FILED INSTANTER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 21st day of July, 2008.

David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.