Reference no: EM133856136

Question

A mail clerk domiciled in Virginia slipped and fell on ice that had formed near the loading dock of the building in Maryland where the clerk's Maryland employer leased space for its headquarters. The building was owned and operated by a Delaware corporation. As a result of the fall, the clerk was injured and the employer's expensive computer he was carrying was badly damaged. The clerk sued the building owner for negligence in a federal district court in Maryland, seeking $100,000 in personal-injury damages. The employer has filed a timely motion to intervene, asserting an $80,000 negligence claim against the building owner for the damage to its computer. Is the court likely to grant the employer's motion to intervene? No, because although the employer has an interest in the clerk's action, that interest is not likely to be impaired in the employer's absence. No, because the clerk chose not to join the employer as a co-plaintiff in his action. Yes, because the employer is an indispensable party. Yes, because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action.