JOHN H. RICH, III, Magistrate Judge.
The United States of America ("United States") moves to intervene as of right in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). See Motion To Intervene ("Motion") (ECF No. 6). No opposition has been filed, although, as the United States observes, see id. at 3, the ECF Docket does not reflect that either defendant has been served with the summons and complaint, see generally ECF docket. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
Rule 24 provides, in relevant part, that, "[o]n timely motion, the court must 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).
As the First Circuit has construed this rule:
Ungar v. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46, 50-51 (1st Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The United States demonstrates each of these elements as follows.
1.
This case is in an early stage, and little has as yet transpired. On March 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed this case in the Maine Superior Court, Penobscot County, seeking to domesticate and enforce a judgment obtained against defendants Karl S. Norberg and Pamela W. Gleichman in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in the amount of $77,521,535.05. See Complaint (ECF No. 4-18), attached to Declaration Upon Removal of Action ("Removal Decl.") (ECF No.
4). The plaintiff that day obtained an order of attachment and trustee process. See Order on Motion for Ex Parte Attachment and Trustee Process (ECF No. 4-10), attached to Removal Decl. The following month, it served summonses on several financial institutions, including TD Bank. See Docket Record ("Superior Court Docket") (ECF No. 4-1), attached to Removal Decl. On or about April 23, 2013, TD Bank answered the summons, stating that it had goods, effects, or credits of the named defendants in the amount of $90,409.87. See ECF No. 4-3, attached to Removal Decl. Promptly thereafter, on May 8, 2013, the United States removed the action to this court, representing that, in response to the summons, TD Bank had erroneously garnished an account of the defendants in which the United States had an interest. See Notice of Removal of Civil Action (ECF No. 1). The only activity in this case since then has been the issuance on June 14, 2013, of summonses to the defendants and the filing on July 17, 2013, of the Motion. See ECF Nos. 5, 5-1, & 6. There is no discernible prejudice to the parties in granting the Motion and discernible prejudice to the United States in denying it.
2.
Specifically, the United States puts forth evidence that, on March 29, 2013, in response to the March 27, 2013, summons issued by the Maine Superior Court, TD Bank garnished a reserve account of the defendants that was designed to pay for maintenance of and capital improvements to Elsemore Estates, a multifamily housing development in Dixfield, Maine, owned and operated by the defendants. See Declaration of Virginia Manuel ("Manuel Decl.") (ECF No. 6-1), attached to Motion, ¶¶ 3-11. The opening of the reserve account was required as a condition of loans made to the defendants by the USDA's Rural Housing Service ("RHS") to finance the operation and maintenance of Elsemore Estates. See id. ¶¶ 1, 4-5. The reserve account was opened on August 8, 2006, as a "New Non-Personal Account" for the benefit of Elsemore Estates by "Karl S. Norberg DBA Elsemore Est Res & USDA" and requires that any withdrawal be accompanied by two signatures, one of which must be that of a USDA-authorized signer. See id. ¶¶ 6-8.
USDA regulations require that funds deposited in a reserve account be used only for certain purposes, such as major capital improvements, certain housing project operating expenses, and other purposes that in RHS's judgment will "promote the loan purposes, strengthen the security or facilitate, improve, or maintain the housing and the orderly collection of the loan without jeopardizing the loan or impairing the adequacy of the security." Id. ¶ 9;
7 C.F.R. § 3560.306(h). Much-needed repairs to Elsemore Estates are scheduled to begin before the end of April that were to be paid for by funds in the reserve account; however, TD Bank has told the USDA that it will not free those funds without a court order. See Manuel Decl. ¶¶ 12-14. The garnishment, thus, threatens a significantly protectable, direct interest that the United States is tasked to promote.
3.
4.
A panoptic view of the United States' position leads to the same conclusion as review of the four individual factors. The United States is tasked to protect a threatened public interest that no party to this litigation can be expected to champion absent its intervention.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is