Moss et al v. Nellis et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 39 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 07/26/12. (emw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
WILLIAM J. MOSS, III, RUDY R.
PAMELA S. NELLIS, et al.,
Pending before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff
[# 39]. Third party Judith Tyndal moves the Court to allow her to intervene as a
Plaintiff in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As a threshold matter, the Motion to Intervene fails to comply with the
requirements of the Local Rules, which require the filing of a motion and a brief.
LCvR 7.1(C). Moreover, the Motion fails to demonstrate that intervention is
proper under Rule 24 or even address any of the legal requirements for
intervention. See Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. V. Peninsula
Shipbuilders’ Assoc., 646 F.2d 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1981) (setting forth the four
requirements that the moving party must show before the Court can allow
intervention as a matter of right); Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (permissive invention is
only proper were the motion is timely and the movant “has a claim or defense that
shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”) In fact, the
Motion fails to even state whether intervention is sought as of right under Rule
24(a) or permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Finally, it is not clear from the
Motion whether Third Party Tyndal served the Motion on all the parties as
provided in Rule 5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c); Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police,
441 F.3d 197, 207-8 (4th Cir. 2006) Accordingly, the Court DENIES without
prejudice the Motion [# 39]. Upon the submission of a motion and brief that
complies with the Local Rules and a showing that intervention is proper under
Rule 24, the Court will consider whether to allow Third Party Tyndal to intervene
as a Plaintiff in this case.
Signed: July 26, 2012