law-intervention rule and case law
INTERVENING IN A PENDING SUIT - APPLICABLE TEXAS RULE
Tex. R. Civ. P. 60 (“Any party may intervene by filing a pleading, subject to being
stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party.”).
In Re Union Carbide Corp., 273 SW 3d 152, No. 07-0987, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 109 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)
(mandamus granted, severance, intervention disallowed)
IN RE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; from Galveston County; 1st district (01‑07‑00707‑CV, ___ SW3d ___,
10‑25‑07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides that “[a]ny party may intervene by filing a pleading subject
to being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party.” The rule authorizes a
party with a justiciable interest in a pending suit to intervene in the suit as a matter of right. Guar. Fed.
Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. 1990). Because intervention is
allowed as a matter of right, the “justiciable interest” requirement is of paramount importance: it
defines the category of non-parties who may, without consultation with or permission from the original
parties or the court, interject their interests into a pending suit to which the intervenors have not been
invited. Thus, the “justiciable interest” requirement protects pending cases from having interlopers
disrupt the proceedings. The parties to the pending case may protect themselves from the intervention
by filing a motion to strike. Id. If any party to the pending suit moves to strike the intervention, the
intervenors have the burden to show a justiciable interest in the pending suit. Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.
W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982).
To constitute a justiciable interest, “[t]he intervenor’s interest must be such that if the original action
had never been commenced, and he had first brought it as the sole plaintiff, he would have been
entitled to recover in his own name to the extent at least of a part of the relief sought” in the original
suit. King v. Olds, 12 S.W. 65, 65 (Tex. 1888). In other words, a party may intervene if the intervenor
could have “brought the [pending] action, or any part thereof, in his own name.” Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank,
793 S.W.2d at 657.
08-0440
ELISABETH S. BROCKIE v. BRIAN L. WEBB AND WEBB & ACKELS, P.C.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-
06-01711-CV, 244 SW3d 905, 02-11-08, pet. denied July 2008) as redrafted (attorney-client fee disputes,
divorce attorney's fees collection, intervention, counterclaim)