Barbosa et al v. General Motors et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANCISCO BARBOSA and KAREN 	)
BARBOSA, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:24-CV-1342-ZMB
)
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, d/b/a General 	)
Motors of Missouri, LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the Court is Intervenor-Plaintiff Accident Fund General Insurance Company’s
Motion to Intervene. Doc. 38. Because Accident Fund is a non-diverse party, the Court cannot
exercise jurisdiction over its claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Accordingly, the Court must deny
Accident Fund’s motion to intervene.
BACKGROUND
In November 2019, Plaintiff Francisco Barbosa tripped over a wheel chock that was left
unsecured in a poorly lit area of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s warehouse.1 Doc. 1 ¶¶ 22–23, 32.
As the insurer for Barbosa’s employer, Accident Fund paid out a worker’s compensation benefits
claim to Barbosa. Doc. 39 ¶ 2. In October 2024, Barbosa and his wife filed their Complaint,
alleging that General Motors was negligent in its operation of the warehouse and that the various
Thyssenkrupp Defendants were negligent in leaving the wheel chock unsecured at the time of his
injury. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 26–46. The Complaint also asserts a loss-of-consortium claim against all
Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 47–49.
1 At this stage of the litigation, the Court “accept[s] as true all material allegations in the motion to intervene.” See
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. E.P.A., 759 F.3d 969, 973 (8th Cir. 2014).
Case: 4:24-cv-01342-ZMB Doc. #: 46 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In March 2025, Accident Fund moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24. Doc. 38. That motion asserts a right to intervene as Barbosa’s subrogee for the negligence
claims. Doc. 38 at 1. General Motors timely responded in opposition, Doc. 40, and Accident Fund
did not file any reply brief. Several months later, Accident Fund filed its disclosure statement,
confirming that it is a citizen of Michigan. Doc. 45. Significantly, Accident Fund shares citizenship
with at least two Defendants: General Motors and Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc.
See Doc. 33 (“General Motors LLC . . . [has] its principal place of business in Michigan.”); Doc.
35 (“Defendant [] is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.”).
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides that a party may intervene as of right or with
the Court’s permission. However, intervention must comport with jurisdictional requirements. Est.
of McFarlin ex rel. Laass v. City of Storm Lake, 277 F.R.D. 384, 388 (N.D. Iowa 2011) (collecting
cases). As relevant here, the Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see Doc. 1 ¶ 15. The Court may
further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under state law when those claims “are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case
or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But that same supplemental-jurisdiction statute provides
that, if jurisdiction is solely founded on diversity, then the Court “shall not have supplemental
jurisdiction under subsection (a) . . . over claims by persons . . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs
under Rule 24 . . . when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be
inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.” Id. § 1367(b).
Case: 4:24-cv-01342-ZMB Doc. #: 46 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
DISCUSSION
Accident Fund fails to address jurisdiction in any of its filings. However, the only
conceivable basis for the Court to consider its claims is supplemental jurisdiction. And there is no
question that it shares citizenship with at least two of the defendants in this case, meaning it lacks
complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As a result, under the plain text of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(b), the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Accident Fund’s claims.
Indeed, a number of courts have applied this jurisdictional bar in similar contexts. See Schwartz v.
Cincinnati Life Ins., No. 4:19-CV-1875-AGF, 2019 WL 3934476, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 20, 2019)
(collecting cases); see also Mehedi v. Memry Corp., No. 3:17-CV-809 (CSH), 2017 WL 2873224,
at *6 (D. Conn. July 5, 2017) (ordering a intervenor-plaintiff subrogee to disclose its citizenship
to determine if the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)). Because the Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain Accident Fund’s claims, the Court must deny its motion for intervention.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Intervenor-Plaintiff Accident Fund General Insurance
Company’s [38] Motion to Intervene.
So ordered this 13th day of November 2025.
ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-01342-ZMB Doc. #: 46 Filed: 11/13/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>