§24.5 Purpose and Procedure

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§24.5PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE

The purpose of and procedure under CR 24 are discussed below.

(1)Purpose

Intervention is a means by which a nonparty may present either a claim or a defense in pending litigation and thereby become a party for all purposes. Depending upon the facts and the matter being litigated, intervention may exist as a matter of right or may be permissive. Spokane Cnty. v. State,136 Wn.2d 644, 649-50, 966P.2d305 (1998). Intervention may be allowed at any stage of the proceeding depending on the circumstances, and may even be requested after judgment is entered and the statute of limitations for filing a separate action has expired. Columbia Gorge Audubon Soc'y v. Klickitat Cnty., 98 Wn.App. 618, 623, 626-27, 989P.2d1260 (1999). Intervention reflects the intent of CR 17 through 24 to avoid multiplicity of similar actions and to assure that proper (and appropriate) parties are before the court.

CR 24 also allows a nonparty whose interest may vary substantially from that of the principal litigants, and whose participation may expand the issues before the court, to join in the case and have its rights and issues determined by the courts. State ex rel. Public Disclosure Comm'nv. 119 VoteNo! Committee,135 Wn.2d 618,622-23, 957 P.2d 691 (1998), illustrates this aspect. The state sued respondent 119 Vote No! alleging that it had knowingly published false political advertising in violation of a state statute. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was allowed to intervene for the purpose of challenging the underlying constitutionality of the statute. The trial court dismissed the state's claim on a CR 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the advertisement in question did not contain false statements. As an intervenor, the ACLU could do what the state presumably could not—appeal the issue of the constitutionality of the statute itself. As a consequence of allowing intervention, the original statutory compliance case became a vehicle to decide a far broader question of policy and constitutionality. As to that point, the Supreme Court noted: "The ACLU may prosecute its complaint after the trial court dismissed the original, underlying suit. State v. Port of Peninsula,89 Wn.2d 764, 767, 575 P.2d 713 (1978) (The court has 'discretion to retain an intervener's suit as a separate action, even if the main action falls.')." 135 Wn.2d at 623 n.5; see also State ex rel. Keeler v. Port of Peninsula,89 Wn.2d 764, 575 P.2d 713 (1978) (after...