CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Caplan
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Johnson Motion to Intervene; designating Tynisha Johnson, Ty'Ron Johnson, and Ta'Ron Johnson as defendants in this case; directing Intervenor Defendants to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint by 3/24/17; referring this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for all discovery matters. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 2/2/2017. (krs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MILDRED K. CAPLAN, et al.,
Civil Action No. RDB-15-3158
Currently pending before the Court is Tynisha Johnson, Ty’Ron Johnson, and
Ta’Ron Johnson’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 14) (“Johnson Motion”).
opposes the Johnson Motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants have not filed a
timely response to the Motion. The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no
hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
Judge James K. Bredar of this Court recently addressed a nearly identical Motion—
both factually and procedurally—to that now before the Court. CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v.
Leader Realty Co., JKB-15-3054, --- F.R.D. ---, 2017 WL 105674 (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2017). In
his Memorandum and Order addressing the motion to intervene in that related case, Judge
Bredar concluded that intervention of right was not warranted, but that the movants would
be allowed to intervene permissively as defendants. Id. Citing Teague v. Bakker, 931 F.2d
259, 261 (4th Cir. 1991), Judge Bredar concluded that the movants were not entitled to
intervene as of right because they had not “adequately shown the second required element of
Rule 24(a)(2), i.e., that ‘disposition of the action may practically impair or impede the
movant's ability to protect that interest.’” Id. at *1. On the other hand, the Court there
found that because both defendants and movants have an interest in a common question of
fact—that is, whether defendants made material misrepresentations on their application for
liability insurance—permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) was appropriate. Id. at *2. To
prevent any delay or prejudice to the original parties, the Court mandated that the
intervenors’ discovery requests must be “nonduplicative of what the other parties are already
taking and otherwise within the scope of established discovery rules.” Id. To ensure an
efficient discovery process, Judge Bredar referred all discovery matters in the case to a
Magistrate Judge to review the Intervenors’ discovery requests prior to their service on
Judge Bredar’s reasoning is persuasive and will be followed in the instant case.
Accordingly, movants Tynisha Johnson, Ty’Ron Johnson, and Ta’Ron Johnson shall be
permitted to intervene as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). In
addition, this case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge for all discovery matters to ensure
that the intervenors’ discovery requests are “nonduplicative of what the other parties are
already taking and otherwise within the scope of established discovery rules,” and to review
the Intervenors’ discovery requests prior to their service on defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, this 2nd day of February, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED
1. The Johnson Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART; specifically, movants shall be permitted to intervene pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), but not as of right pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a);
2. Tynisha Johnson, Ty’Ron Johnson, and
DESIGNATED as defendants in this case;
3. The Intervenor Defendants SHALL FILE an Answer to the Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 36) by March 24, 2017;
4. The Intervenor Defendants may conduct limited discovery that is nonduplicative of
what the other parties are already taking and otherwise within the scope of
established discovery rules;
5. This Case is REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for all discovery
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
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?