Intervention

(a) Intervention of Right. — On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or 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, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. (b) Permissive Intervention. — (1) In General. — On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. (2) By a Government Officer or Agency. — On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party’s claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order. (3) Delay or Prejudice. — In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. (c) Notice and Pleading Required. — A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. History: Added February 2, 2017, effective March 1, 2017. Source. — This rule, except for subdivision (d), is similar to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Motion for permissive intervention properly denied. of right was properly denied. — Two state representatives and an advocacy group were properly denied permis- sive intervention under the rule in a suit chal- lenging the constitutionality laws restricting abortion because the defendants were ad- equately representing the petitioners’ interests and intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the case’s adjudication. Rodriguez- Williams v. Johnson, 2024 WY 16, 542 P.3d 632, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 16 (Wyo. 2024). Purpose of rule. — The requirements of this rule are for the purpose of informing the affected parties of applicant’s claim and permit- ting a hearing thereon as a basis for the court’s determination of the right to intervene. School Dist. v. District Boundary Bd., 351 P.2d 106, 1960 Wyo. LEXIS 56 (Wyo. 1960). Jurisdiction not affected by misjoinder in tax case. — Although a county was improp- erly allowed to intervene in a deficiency action to challenge the Wyoming Department of Rev- enue’s valuation methodology, jurisdiction was not affected because the contested case hearing was conducted in distinct phases. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2004 WY 89, 94 P.3d 430, 2004 Wyo. LEXIS 117 (Wyo. 2004). The purpose of intervention as of right is to protect the intervenor’s interest in the subject matter of the action, and not to provide a means for the proposed intervenor to assert personal jurisdiction not otherwise available to him. James S. Jackson Co. v. Horseshoe Creek, Ltd., 650 P.2d 281, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 378 (Wyo. 1982). Intervention as of right. — Wyo. Bd. Equalization R. Prac. & Proc. ch. 2, § 14 re- garding intervention is void because it does not accurately reflect the full legal requirements of intervention as of right under this section. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2004 WY 89, 94 P.3d 430, 2004 Wyo. LEXIS 117 (Wyo. 2004). Where an oil production challenged the Wyo- ming Department of Revenue’s ruling changing the allocation of the company’s oil production from a production unit for 1980 through 1988 between one county and intervenor county, the intervenor county’s intervention was arguably proper under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 24(a), and the company did not present cogent argument nor did it cite pertinent authority that allowing intervention as a matter of right was reversible error under the circumstances of the case, es- pecially in consideration of the circumstance that the evidence presented at hearing would