Odia et al v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARVIS ODIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS MUTUAL
AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Intervenors,
VS .
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA,§
LLC, et al., 	§
Defendants.
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-467
Before the Court is S&R Operations, Inc. d/b/a ServPro of Town & Country's ("ServPro")
Motion for Leave to Intervene. (Doc. No. 23). Defendants responded in opposition, (Doc. No. 25),
and the Intervening Insurers joined that response, (Doc. No. 27). ServPro then replied. (Doc. No.
26). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES ServPro's Motion for Leave to Intervene.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is an automative product-liability case arising from a vehicle fire that caused the loss
of Plaintiffs' home. (Doc. No. 25 at 3). Plaintiffs allege that their 2023 Range Rover vehicle caught
fire while parked in their driveway under the roof overhang of the garage, igniting the home and
allegedly causing the loss of the entire home and its contents. (Id.) . As a result, Plaintiffs filed suit
in Texas state district court asserting negligence, breach of implied warranty, and product liability
claims against the several Defendants. The underlying facts for each of these claims center around
the 2023 Land Rover and whether it caused the fire. (Doc. No. 2-4 (Plaintiffs' State Court
Petition)).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-00467 Document 36 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC removed the case to this Court. (Doc.
No. 2 at 1). Subsequently, Agricultural Workers Mutual Auto Insurance Company and Redwood
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Plaintiff's home and vehicle insurance companies)
("Intervening Insurers") moved for leave to intervene, which this Court granted. (Doc. No. 16) .
Intervening Insurers also brought negligence, product liability, and breach of implied warranty
claims against the various Defendants. (Doc. No. 17).
Now, ServPro seeks to intervene in this lawsuit. According to 	ServPro's proposed
Complaint in Intervention, on the day of the fire, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with ServPro
for it to perform cleaning and restoration services at their home which sustained significant damage
due to the fire allegedly caused by the 2023 Land Rover. (Doc. No. 23 at 13). ServPro claims that
one of the Plaintiffs agreed that the famil y' s insurers were authorized to pay ServPro directly for
any portion of the work covered by the Plaintiffs' insurance policies. (Id.) . ServPro alleges that
after it proceeded in good faith to clean up debris in the Plaintiffs' home, Plaintiffs terminated the
contract with ServPro, and ultimately, never paid ServPro for any of the services it provided. (Id.
at 14). ServPro seeks to intervene and bring four causes of action: three causes of action against
the Plaintiffs related to payment on the contract, and one cause of action against the Intervening
Insurers, alleging ServPro was a third-party beneficiary to the insurance contracts. (Id. at 15 - 17).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (a) provides 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). In other words, a proposed intervenor is entitled to
2
Case 4:24-cv-00467 Document 36 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

intervene if: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has an interest relating
to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that
the disposition of the action may impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the
applicant's interest is inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit. Guenther v. BP
Ret. Accumulation Plan, 50 F.4th 536, 542 (5th Cir. 2022); New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United
Gas Pipe Line Co. , 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides a permissive alternative: "On timely
motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... is given a conditional right to intervene
by a federal statute; or ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (emphasis added). "Permissive intervention is
'wholly discretionary ' and may be denied even when the requirements of Rule 24(b) are satisfied."
Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 9 F.4th 300, 317 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting United Gas Pipe Line Co. ,
732 F.2d at 471-72). The court must "consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights," as well as "whether the intervenors are
adequately represented by other parties and whether they are likely to contribute significantly to
the development of the underlying factual issues." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); League of United Latin
Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 884 F.2d 185 , 189 (5th Cir. 1989).
III. 	ANALYSIS
First, ServPro claims it is entitled to intervention as ofright under Rule 24(a), but ServPro
cannot demonstrate that it "has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the
subject of the action." Guenther, 50 F.4th at 542. The subject of this action is related to the 2023
Land Rover and whether or not a product defect or negligence contributed to the damage Plaintiffs'
vehicle and house sustained. The subject of ServPro's claims is its contract with the Plaintiffs,
3
Case 4:24-cv-00467 Document 36 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

entered into in the aftermath of the fire, and the resulting payment, or lack thereof. Although both
claims are related to the house fire, the subject of each action is different. Accordingly, ServPro
does not have an interest in the property or transaction which is the subject of this action, so it does
not have a right to intervention. See Transatlantica Commodities Pte Ltd. v. Hanw in Shipping Ltd. ,
No. 	4:22-CV-1983 , 	2024 	WL 	4535472, 	at 	*4 	(S .D. 	Tex. 	Sept. 	24, 	2024), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. CV H:22-1983 , 2024 WL 4535461 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18 , 2024) (citing
Skinner Pile Driving, Inc. v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co ., No. 14-cv-0329, 2015 WL 1469888, at *3
(S.D. Ala. Mar. 21 , 2015) (denying intervention where the interest was speculative and contingent
upon intervenor succeeding on its own breach of contract claim- 	separate, unrelated, and
independent from the litigation at issue).
Second, ServPro argues that it is entitled to permissive intervention. That argument also
ultimately fails for similar reasons. There is no common question of law or fact regarding ServPro 's
alleged contract payment dispute and Plaintiffs and Intervening Insurers ' product-related claims.
ServPro's claims involve issues as to its contract with Plaintiffs, what work was performed under
that contract, and whether Plaintiffs paid for the work. Whereas, in the present product liability
suit, the issues center around science and engineering applied to the product, causation, and
damages.
Furthermore, the only common fact between ServPro's claims and the product suit is that
they both exist because of Plaintiffs' house fire. Nevertheless, there is no question that the fire
occurred or that it damaged Plaintiff's house. ServPro 's claims do not share a common question of
law or fact for resolution, so it is not entitled to permissive joinder. See Ortiz v. A .N P , Inc., No.
10-CV-917, 2010 WL 3702595, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 15 , 2010) (declining to find permissive
joinder where there were no questions of fact common to both sets of claims at issue).
4
Case 4:24-cv-00467 Document 36 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, ServPro's Motion for Leave to Intervene (Doc. No. 23) is
DENIED.
It is so ordered.
rSigned on this the~ day of March, 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
5
Case 4:24-cv-00467 Document 36 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5