The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DEANGELO PEDEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00352-SEB-MG
)
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, )
RANDAL TAYLOR Chief; in his Individual and )
Official Capacity, )
BRENT TURNER Officer; in his Individual and )
Official Capacity, )
KEVIN TOMES Field Training Officer; in his )
Individual and Offical Capacity, )
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, )
JOSE PICHARDO LOPEZ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
AMERICAN ACCESS CASUALTY COMPANY, )
)
Intervenor. )
ORDER
Pending before the Court is American Access Casualty Company's ("American Access")
Motion to Intervene, [Filing No. 30], and Motion to Stay the present case, [Filing No. 31]. For the
reasons discussed below, American Access' Motion to Intervene, [30], is GRANTED and its
Motion to Stay, [31], is DENIED.
I. Motion to Intervene
The process of intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and can take
two forms: intervention of right governed by Rule 24(a), and permissive intervention governed by
24(b). Intervention of right is either a result of an unconditional statutory grant, or the intervening
party “claims an interest relating to the . . . 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Seventh Circuit has established that four
elements must be present for an appeal under FRCP 24(a) to be granted: (1) timeliness of the
motion; (2) intervenors must possess an interest related to the subject matter of the action; (3) the
disposition or result of that action threatens to impair that interest; and (4) the parties to the action
fail to adequately represent the interest. Vollmer v. Publishers Clearing House, 248 F.3d 698, 705
(7th Cir. 2001). The absence of any of these requirements is sufficient to deny a motion to
intervene. United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. Ct. App. 2003). Finally, a
motion to intervene must also be “accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense
for which intervention is sought.” Shevlin v. Schewe, 809 F.2d 447, 450 (7th Cir. 1987); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(c).
Here, American Access has met all the required elements for a motion to intervene in the
present case. The motion meets the timeliness requirement, as American Access submitted this
motion less than six months after the filing of this case, and prior to the end of Discovery detailed
in the Case Management Plan. [See Filing No. 19.] American Access also has an interest related
to the subject matter of this action, satisfying the second and third elements of the required test.
American Access has clearly articulated in their motion that their intervention is necessary as there
is a dispute of fact whether Defendant Jose Pichardo Lopez qualifies as insured under American
Access's policies. If Defendant Lopez qualifies as insured, American Access may be financially
liable to Plaintiff via recovery through the insurance policy. [See Filing No. 30.] With this potential
for liability before them, and no party to represent their financial interests among the plaintiff or
defendants, American Access also meets the requirement for element four of the test laid out in
Vollmer. As such, the Court finds that American Access' Motion to Intervene, [30] is GRANTED.
II. Motion to Stay Proceedings
It is well-established that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The
decision whether to grant a stay is discretionary and requires a countervailing analysis of the
benefit to the party seeking the stay and the hardship and delay to the nonmoving parties. Radio
Corp. of Am. v. Igoe, 217 F.2d 218, 220 (7th Cir.1954). Therefore, the proponent of the stay has
the burden of clearly establishing the need for the Court to grant the motion. Landis at 255. The
Southern District of Indiana uses six factors to determine the necessity of a stay:
(1) whether the civil and criminal proceedings involve the same
subject matter;
(2) whether the [plaintiff] has initiated both proceedings;
(3) the posture of the criminal proceeding;
(4) the effect on the public interest of granting or denying a stay; (5)
the interest of [the parties] in proceeding expeditiously, and the
potential prejudice that [the parties] may suffer from a delay; and
(6) the burden that any particular aspect of the civil case may impose
on [the parties] if a stay is denied.
U.S. ex rel. Chepurko v. E-Biofuels, LLC, 2014 WL 4216049 at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2014)
(citing Salcedo v. City of Chicago, 2010 WL 2721864 at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2010). Under these
factors, American Access has not carried their burden of convincing the Court a stay in this matter
is necessary.
The first factor does weigh in favor of granting the stay, as both the criminal and civil
proceedings involve the same set of facts and subject matter. See Chepurko, 2014 WL 4216049 at
*2. And while Plaintiff initiated both proceedings, a change of plea in the criminal case suggests
that matter may be nearing resolution, with a plea hearing scheduled for November 18, 2024.
Further, American Access noted they have withdrawn consideration of Plaintiff's criminal matter
as a basis for the Court to stay this case. [See Filing No. 35.] Thus, factors two and three work
against the movant. Id.
The fourth factor also works against the movant. Public interest would not be served by
delaying proceedings for an undetermined amount of time in a case that has been proceeding
smoothly since February and involves multiple defendants in their official capacity as law
enforcement officers of the State of Indiana, as well as a private citizen, all of whom have already
been involved in the criminal case arising from this occurrence since 2022. Despite uncertainty
about their obligation to defend Mr. Pichardo Lopez, American Access disclosed in their brief in
support of this motion that their policy’s coverage limits are close to, if not within, their own
estimate of costs for doing so, which does not persuade this Court that the balance of the public
interest weighs in their favor. Chepurko, 2014 WL 4216049 at *2. [See also Filing No. 35.]
The fourth factor also bears on the sixth factor, as all parties save intervenor American
Access appear to be seeking the most expedient resolution of this matter. The burden imposed on
American Access is potentially having to engage in pre-trial processes for two additional weeks,
pending the outcome of the plea hearing in the criminal case and the Declaratory Judgment filing
by American Access. [See Filing No. 35.] In the worst-case scenario for American Access, they
will have engaged in preparatory activities for a lawsuit they do not have to engage in further, but
this will not stop them from seeking reimbursement from Mr. Pichardo Lopez. Thus, the sixth
factor also weighs against American Access.
Finally, the fifth factor also weighs against American Access at this time; the Court is not
persuaded to stay the deadlines of this case, which were approved by all parties in this case except
for Intervenor, when no clear date for the end of the stay was requested or can be determined. As
mentioned above, these disputes are the result of occurrences from 2022, and it is in the interest of
the Court to continue to move as expeditiously as possible toward their resolution. Halting all
progress on this case to wait for a ruling on American Access’ Declaratory Judgment does not
outweigh the potential prejudice that other parties to this case may suffer.
As such, the Court finds that American Access’ Motion to Stay, [31], is DENIED without
prejudice. Should American Access, after its Declaratory Judgement action evolves, believe a
stay 1s justified at that later date, it may refile its motion for this Court's consideration.
Conclusion
American Access' Motion to Intervene, [30], is GRANTED, and its Motion to Stay, [31],
is DENIED, without prejudice. Should American Access, after its Declaratory Judgement action
evolves, believe a stay is justified at that later date, it may refile its motion for this Court's
consideration.
Date: 11/6/2024
arlo Garcia
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF to all counsel of record.