Schreckengast et al v. Carollo et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting 70 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/10/17. (jlm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION JOHN PATRICK SCHRECKENGAST, and ANDREA SCHRECKENGAST Plaintiff, v. CV416-038 CHARLES S. CAROLLO, individually, LANDSTAR INWAY, INC , and LANDSTAR SYSTEM, INC. . Defendants. ORDER Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. (“CCMS”) moves to intervene as a plaintiff in this action to protect its alleged subrogation rights in $179,714.77 of workers’ compensation benefits that it paid to plaintiff John Patrick Schreckengast. See Doc. 71 at 2; see also doc. 70-2 (proposed Complaint). The time provided by the Court’s Local Rules for opposition to the motion has passed. By their silence, the parties indicate that they do not oppose it. See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 7.5. CCMS’s unrebutted motion shows that it is entitled to intervene as a matter of right. See doc. 71; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Accordingly, CCMS’s motion (doc. 70) is GRANTED , and it is permitted to intervene in this action as a plaintiff. The Court deems CCMS’s Complaint, as attached to its motion, filed and served on the parties (subject to objection, within 7 days of the date this Order is served, coupled by showing why formal service is required) and this action shall continue as scheduled. 1 The parties shall have 21 days from unobjected-to service to serve their respective responsive pleadings (otherwise, 21 days from formal service). SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 2017. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE ILJDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 1 In particular, the Pretrial Conference, which has been set for April 17, 2017, will continue as scheduled. Doc. 69. Counsel should confer as necessary to ensure that the Conference is not disrupted by CCMS’s intervention. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?