Case: Atlantis Development Corp., v. U.S. (1967, 5th) [app.

34-45]

Parties: Appellant - Atlantis

Appellee - U.S.

Facts:
○ Anderson (Atlantis' predecessor in interest) "discovered" (they were known
to exist for a long time) some coral reefs. Anderson made a claim to it through
discovery rights. The "rights" were then acquired by Atlantis.
○ Atlantis sought permission and wanted to gain ownership. State and
federal courts denied jurisdiction because the area was outside U.S. boundaries.
Atlantis then spent money on surveys and construction on the reefs.
○ U.S. Corps of Engineers then asserted that it was govt property and
permits were needed to build there. US govt sued Acme for trespassing b/c Acme was
building there w/o a permit.
○ Atlantis tried to intervene in this case, claiming that U.S. does not
have territorial jurisdiction, dominion or ownership over the reefs, and therefore
cannot maintain the action for injunction, and also that Atlantis is rightful
owner (has the title) of the property by discovery and occupation (Anderson did
this supposedly). The lower court denied the intervention by Atlantis, stating
that Atlantis doesn’t have such an interest in this case to allow intervention.

Issue: Whether intervention can be granted.

Holding: Lower court ruling reversed. Intervention allowed.

Reasoning:
○ Under Rule 24(a)(2), court must permit intervention where intervener
"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."
□ Court says that the effect doesn’t have to be binding in a formal
sense (res judicata). Intervener would be bound here in a practical sense however
- there would be an immediate effect on the intervener. They would lose their
title to the land otherwise.
□ Their interests are not adequately protected (or at all) because each
side is fighting for the same land. Acme wants land for itself, not for Atlantis.
□ Also, Atlantis formally informed the govt of their claim of
ownership.

Class Notes
• As a law matter, US sues for trespassing.
○ On the grounds that by statute, the reef belongs to US, so private parties
are trespassers
• Atlantis files motions to intervene - we own it, everyone else is wrong
○ Motion to intervene as a defendant, in accordance with 24(c) - proposed
pleadings answer govt's complaints by denying any trespassing title of the gov't
and cross-claiming against co-D for trespassing
• Atlantis could have also intervened as a P - cross-claim against US for title,
and suing D for trespassing - could be done either way
• You can't come in as a P, if jurisdictional basis is diversity, and it would
destroy diversity, then have to come in as a D
○ To come in as P, you need independent SMJ
○ If you intervene as a D, but would destroy SMJ, its ok b/c of suppl.
Jurisdiction
○ Here Atlantis has independent SMJ (complete diversity)
• How does the court tackle the problem here?
○ Party is moving to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2)
§ (a) Plainly the applicant claims an interest - OK
§ (b) is the applicant so situated that the protection of the interest
would be impeded?
□ Is interest in property being impaired or impeded? - Atlantis
can just later sue the winner for the title on the property
® May as a practical matter impair or impede the interest
of the outside party (Atlantis has an interest in this property)
® b/c all 3 parties may be right owner of the property
® There interest in the claim - is one and the same
◊ A verdict or judgment in this case would be same in
all further cases
◊ Star decisis
◊ Claim was all the same
§ (c) is property being adequately defended?
□ D is in direct conflict with Atlantis - so Atlantis's interest
cannot be adequately defended by D
○ Efficiency - we want to get the whole dispute resolved now, instead of
having an additional lawsuit
• So motion is granted
• Under Rule 19(a)(2) - district court could have joined Atlantis on its own
motion
○ Raises issues as to the judicial role - reaching out to resolve the whole
dispute
○ If judge sees a party he thinks should be a party, the likelihood is that
the D's will go off and make the motion
§ Unlikely to happen here, D has no interest in adding other claimants
§ What normally does happen is that the judge's suggestion triggers a
motion to intervene by that 3rd party