Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it denied Petitioner's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) motion to intervene as a matter of right

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Sean Hartranft brought an action against Midland Credit Management, Inc. for damages and injunctive relief for Midland’s violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and sought to intervene into Fetai v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA-MDD. The District Court denied Petitioner’s motion on November 1, 2019 stating that Petitioner did not meet the Rule 24 threshold. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision on November 19, 2019, expressly holding that Petitioner had not met his burden on showing that the motion to intervene was proper, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Petitioner’s motion to intervene was untimely. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it denied Petitioner’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) motion to intervene as a matter of right into Fetai v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. 2. Whether the District Court committed reversible error when it denied Petitioner’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(b) motion to permissively intervene into Fetai v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. u 3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it determined that Petitioner’s motion to intervene as a matter of right was untimely. 4. Whether the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to intervene as a matter of right denied him recovery to his “significantly protectable interest,” protected under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a), constituted a violation of Petitioner’s procedural due process rights under the 5" and 14* Amendments of the United States Constitution.