Rockhill Insurance Company v. High End Development, Inc.

facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. First, the motion to intervene was timely filed. The three-month delay between USIC’s knowledge of the lawsuit and its initial motion to intervene is irrelevant because that motion was denied as moot when the case was stayed. See U.S. v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004). This motion to intervene was filed two weeks after the stay was lifted. That is a reasonable amount of time and does not unduly prejudice the parties at this early stage of litigation, especially given that no answer has been filed, and no substantive motions have been briefed or ruled upon. See Alisal, 370 F.3d at 921. Second, USIC asserts a “significantly protectable interest relating to the . . . subject of the action.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Association, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). USIC has shown that it has an interest in seeking equitable contribution from Rockhill under California law for its coverage of High End’s defense costs and insurance claims, which would be wiped out if Rockhill prevails in this action. See Dkt. No. 57 at 10 (citing Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v.…