United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joel Schwartz filed this breach-of-contract action in
Missouri state court on May 30, 2019. Plaintiff asserted that
he was the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy
that Defendant issued on the life of Ricky Dean Cain. Cain
died on or about December 1, 2018. Defendant removed the
action to this Court on July 2, 2019, asserting that the
Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332 and 1441. Specifically, Defendant asserted
that Plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, Defendant was a
citizen of Ohio, and the amount in controversy exceeded the
jurisdictional minimum because the insurance policy in
question provides benefits to the beneficiary in the amount
of $200, 000. ECF No. 1.
matter is now before the Court on the motion (ECF No. 14) of
Kurt A. Schmid, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Ricky Dean Cain (the "Estate"), to intervene in
this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
Schmid asserts that he has been appointed as the personal
representative of the Estate by the Probate Division of the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and that
the Estate is the true beneficiary of the subject insurance
policy. Schmid asserts that he may intervene on behalf of the
Estate as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) because the Estate has
an interest relating to the property that is the subject of
this action and is so situated that disposing of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to
protect its interest. Alternatively, Schmid seeks permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b). Schmid's motion seeks
intervention as a party-plaintiff No. party has opposed
Schmid's motion, and the time to do so has passed.
Court will deny Schmid's motion without prejudice because
Schmid has not complied with Rule 24(c)'s requirement
that the motion "be accompanied by a pleading that sets
out the claim or defense for which intervention is
sought." Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c). "This requirement is
not merely a procedural formality, but is integral to the
Court's necessary analysis of the legal rights asserted
by the intervenor, and concomitant issues such as standing
and jurisdiction." St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Cty.
of Franklin, Mo., No. 4:09CV987-DJS, 2009 WL 3852462, at
*1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2009).
Schmid does not explain the basis for the Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction over his proposed claim. It is
not at all clear that the Court would have jurisdiction.
Although the motion to intervene does not identify the
citizenship of the proposed intervenor, if the proposed
intervenor is a citizen of Missouri, and thus shares
citizenship with the existing Plaintiff, the Court questions
whether it would have jurisdiction, at least as the case is
courts have denied motions to intervene in diversity cases
where the proposed intervenor is a citizen of the same state
as a party against whom the intervenor would be aligned if
intervention were allowed. See, e.g., Estate of McFarlin
ex rel. Laass v. City of Storm Lake, 277 F.R.D. 384, 388
(N.D. Iowa 2011); see also Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d
380, 390 (5th Cir. 2010) (interpreting the jurisdictional
exclusions in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) to mean that persons
who fall within the exclusions may not be joined to a federal
action); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) (holding that in civil
actions proceeding in a district court based solely on
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the
district court "shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against
persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over
claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs
under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the
jurisdictional requirements of section 1332").
Schmid seeks intervention as an "Intervenor
Plaintiff," when "ascertaining the proper alignment
of parties for jurisdictional purposes, courts have a
'duty' to 'look beyond the pleadings, and arrange
the parties according to their sides in the
dispute.'" Griffin, 621 F.3d at 388 (citing
City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat'l Bank of City of
N. Y., 314 U.S. 63, 69 (1941)). Thus, the Court would
have to first determine whether the proposed intervenor and
the existing Plaintiff are on the same or opposite sides.
interpleader structure is often used in cases involving
disinterested insurance companies and claimants asserting
entitlement to insurance proceeds." Angst v. Royal
Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 77 F.3d 701, 704 (3d Cir.
1996). In such cases, diversity may be satisfied "where
a stakeholder is diverse from its claimants."
Id. at 703. But no statutory or Rule 22 interpleader
action has been filed by the Defendant insurance company in
this case, and no party has asserted that an interpleader
structure is appropriate.
foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Schmid's motion to
intervene, without prejudice, as a result of Schmid's
failure to comply with Rule 24(c). Any future motion to
intervene must fully comply with Rule 24, including Rule
24(c), and must set forth the basis for this Court's
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kurt A.
Schmid's motion to intervene is DENIED without