Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Intervention in Civil Procedure?

In civil procedure, the burden of proof for intervention typically lies with the party seeking to intervene. They must demonstrate that they meet the criteria for intervention established by the applicable rules.

In civil procedure, intervention allows a third party to join ongoing litigation. The burden of proof for establishing the right to intervene generally falls on the intervenor. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a party may intervene either as of right or with the court's permission. To intervene as of right, the intervenor must show that they have a significant interest in the subject matter of the action, that their ability to protect that interest may be impaired, and that the existing parties do not adequately represent that interest.

Furthermore, when seeking permissive intervention, the intervenor must demonstrate that their claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. In both scenarios, the intervenor must substantiate their claims and satisfy procedural requirements, thus demonstrating their standing to enter the case.

The courts consider several factors, including timeliness of the motion for intervention and potential prejudice to existing parties, but ultimately, it is up to the intervenor to present sufficient grounds to justify their inclusion in the lawsuit. The party opposing intervention may rebut these assertions, but the prima facie burden remains with the proposed intervenor throughout the process.

Key cases such as *Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America* emphasize the importance of representing an interest in the litigation. Additionally, *Grutter v. Bollinger* illustrates how courts look at whether intervention may impair the intervenor's interests, reinforcing the need for a clear and compelling justification for intervention.

• 1Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America (1972) - established the criterion for standing to intervene.
• 2Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) - discussed the necessity of timely intervention and impact on existing parties.
• 3Smith v. New York City Housing Authority (1976) - highlighted the necessity of showing a direct and substantial interest in the outcome.

• criteria-for-intervention-in-civil-procedure
• difference-between-intervention-as-of-right-and-permissive-intervention
• impact-of-timeliness-on-intervention-requests