Martin v. Kalvar Corporation
| Decision Date | 26 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26677.,26677. |
| Citation | 411 F.2d 552 |
| Parties | Bess A. MARTIN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KALVAR CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis P. Bickel, Johnson, Bromberg, Leeds & Riggs, Dallas, Tex., Gordon F. Wilson, Jr., Robert E. Leake, Jr., Hammett, Leake & Hammett, New Orleans, La., Brantly Harris, Lonard K. Wells, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gibbons Burke, Harry McCall, Jr., Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Before THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges, and FISHER, District Judge.
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court properly denied the motion of Patrick S. Martin to intervene in a shareholder's derivative action to rescind Kalvar Corporation's acquisition of the stock of S. O. Systems, Inc. in exchange for Kalvar Corporation stock.
Intervention is divided into two classes under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) Intervention of right, and (b) Permissive intervention. If the right to intervene is absolute, the order denying intervention is appealable and may be judged on its merits.1 If the right to intervene is permissive, no appeal may be taken from an order denying leave to file an intervention in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. B. & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947); Lipsett v. U. S., 359 F.2d 956 (2nd Cir. 1966); Mendenhall v. Allen, 346 F.2d 326 (7th Cir. 1965).
The crucial question here is whether the interest of Patrick S. Martin is adequately represented by the Plaintiff stockholders who brought the original suit in behalf of Kalvar Corporation. The rule is that representation is adequate if no collusion is shown between the representative and an opposing party, if the representative does not have or represent an interest adverse to the proposed intervenor and if the representative does not fail in the fulfillment of his duty. Peterson v. U. S., 41 F.R.D. 131 (D.C.Minn.1966); Stadin v. Union Electric Co., 309 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1962); Freiday v. Cowdin, 83 F.Supp. 516 (D.C.N.Y.1949).
Appellant, Patrick S. Martin, has failed to show that any interest he might have would not be adequately protected by the present representatives. Appellant cannot successfully contend that the present plaintiffs represent an interest adverse to him since he has acknowledged that the suit was brought in behalf of Kalvar Corporation and not for the immediate benefit of the shareholder representatives. He does argue that his interest is distinct from the interest of the present representatives in that he seeks to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.
...845-46 (5th Cir.1973); International Tank Terminals, Ltd. v. M/V Acadia Forest, 579 F.2d 964, 967-68 (5th Cir.1978); Martin v. Kalvar Corp., 411 F.2d 552, 553 (5th Cir.1969). In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 542 F.2d 214 (4th Cir.1976), the court considered the appli......
-
Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America
...U.S. 519, 524, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947); Levin v. Ruby Trading Corp., 333 F.2d 592, 594 (2d Cir. 1964); Martin v. Kalvar Corp., 411 F.2d 552, 553 (5th Cir. 1969); Mendenhall v. Allen, 346 F.2d 326, 328 (7th Cir. Denial of a motion seeking permissive intervention may only be appea......
-
U.S. v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc.
...of R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 331 U.S. 519, 524, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 1390, 91 L.Ed. 1646, 1650 (1947); Martin v. Kalvar Corp., 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 552. If no abuse of discretion is demonstrated, then once again the district court's order is not appealable and we must dismiss the......
-
Sierra Club v. Froehlke
...Steamship Co., 448 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1971); Diaz v. Southern Drilling Corp., 427 F.2d 1118, 1124 (5th Cir. 1970); Martin v. Kalvar Corp., 411 F.2d 552, 553 (5th Cir. 1969); Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 825 (5th Cir. 1967). 184 See, e. g., Wilderness Society v.......