United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
PLATINUM FINANCIAL TRUST LLC and PLATINUM AUTO FUNDING LLC, Plaintiffs,
DOUGLAS CARTER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Indiana State Police, TERRY CURRY, in his official capacity as the Prosecutor of Marion County, Indiana, and JOHN R. LAYTON, in his official capacity as the Marion County Sheriff, Defendants,
ALLY FINANCIAL Intervenor Defendant.
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
pending before this Court are two motions-a Motion to
Intervene, filed by Intervenor Defendant Ally Financial, Inc.
(“Ally”), [Filing No. 20], and
a Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Platinum
Financial Trust LLC (“Platinum
Financial”), Platinum Auto Funding LLC
(”Platinum Funding”), and Ally,
[Filing No. 30].
January 10, 2017, Platinum Financial and Platinum Funding
filed a complaint for injunctive relief and damages against
Indiana State Police Superintendent Douglas Carter, Marion
County Prosecutor Terry Curry, and Marion County Sheriff John
R. Layton, each in his official capacity. [Filing No.
1.] Platinum Financial and Platinum Funding allege that
they were deprived of their rights under the Fourth, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendments when the Indiana State Police and
the Johnson County Sheriff's Department seized several
motor vehicles (the “Vehicles”) from
their property. [Filing No. 1 at 4-6.] Platinum
Financial and Platinum Funding also state that “[o]n
February 26, 2016, a complaint was filed in Johnson County
Superior Court . . . seeking to quiet title for the
[V]ehicles and for declaratory judgment.” [Filing
No. 1 at 4.]
February 8, 2017, Ally Filed a Motion to Intervene pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 24. [Filing No. 20.]
Ally-“an auto finance company that is in the business
of indirectly financing the purchase or lease of
automobiles”-alleges that it maintains a first priority
security interest in twelve of the Vehicles. [Filing No.
21 at 2-3.]
March 24, 2017, Platinum Financial, Platinum Funding, and
Ally filed a Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. [Filing
No. 30.] This Motion is opposed by Superintendent Carter
and Prosecutor Curry, [Filing No. 35], as well as
Sheriff Layton, [Filing No. 37].
Motions are now ripe for review and the Court will consider
and rule upon each in turn.
Ally's Motion to Intervene [Filing No.
support of its Motion to Intervene, Ally contends that it is
party to two suits in state court involving the Vehicles.
First, Ally is one of the defendants in Platinum Financial
and Platinum Funding's Johnson County suit “to
determine each Party's rights to the [V]ehicles.”
[Filing No. 21 at 2.] Second, prior to Platinum
Financial and Platinum Funding allegedly purchasing an
interest in the Vehicles, Ally filed suit in Marion County
seeking to establish, among other things, its superior title
to the Vehicles and its right to possess the same.
[Filing No. 21 at 2-3.] Ally argues that it is
entitled to Intervene as of Right pursuant to FRCP
24(a)(2) because: (1) its Motion is timely; (2) it has
an interest related to the subject matter of the case by
claiming superior interests and rights in the Vehicles; (3)
it risks impairment of its interests and rights in the
Vehicles if Platinum Financial and Platinum Funding are
granted possession and control of the Vehicles; and (4) it is
not represented by any of the current parties in the case.
[Filing No. 21 at 7.] In the alternative, Ally
argues that it should be granted permissive intervention
pursuant to FRCP 24(b)(1) because its interest in
the Vehicles represents a common question of law or fact and
intervention will neither delay nor otherwise prejudice the
adjudication. [Filing No. 21 at 7-8.]
the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants responded to Ally's
Motion to Intervene.
24(a)(2) provides that on a timely motion, the Court mu st
permit anyone to intervene who “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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). “The proposed intervenor has the
burden of proving each element, and lack of even one ...