PNC Bank, National Association, successor by merger to National City Bank, a national banking association v. Legal Advocacy, P.C. et al

Filing 258

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 248 AND 250 TO INTERVENE Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

Case 4:16-cv-13258-LVP-DRG ECF No. 258, PageID.4337 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PNC BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 16-13258
Honorable Linda V. Parker

LEGAL ADVOCACY, P.C., f/k/a
NORMAN YATOOMA &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., and NORMAN A.
YATOOMA,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE (ECF NOS. 248, 250)
This is a lawsuit arising from Defendants’ breach of a promissory note and
guaranty. On September 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff PNC’s motion, ECF
No. 224, and entered an order on September 12 appointing Charles D. Bullock as
the Receiver and setting forth his authority “Receivership Order.” (ECF No. 226.)
Presently before the Court are motions to intervene filed by Christine L.
Castantino, Jr. and Lisa Gray (“Petitioners”). (ECF Nos. 248, 250.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides that a court must permit
intervention by anyone who has been give an unconditional right to intervene by
a federal statute. Rule 24(a) provides:

Case 4:16-cv-13258-LVP-DRG ECF No. 258, PageID.4338 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 4

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal
statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that
disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or
impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless
existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Moreover, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) provides
that,“[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or
fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). A motion to intervene “must state the grounds
for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or
defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). The Sixth Circuit
interprets Rule 24(a) as setting forth four elements that must be satisfied before
intervention as of right will be granted:
(1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the
applicant’s substantial legal interest in the case, (3)
impairment of the applicant’s ability to protect that interest
in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate
representation of that interest by parties already before the
court.
Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467, 471 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Michigan
State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir.1997)); see also Northland
Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323, 343 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing
2

Case 4:16-cv-13258-LVP-DRG ECF No. 258, PageID.4339 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 4

Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394, 397-98 (6th Cir. 1999)). “Failure to meet any
one of the four criteria will require that the motion to intervene be denied.”
Stupak-Thrall, 226 F.3d at 471 (brackets omitted) (quoting Grubbs v. Norris, 870
F.2d 343, 345 (6th Cir. 1989)); see also Blount-Hill v. Zelman, 636 F.3d 278, 283
(6th Cir. 2011) (providing that “[e]ach of these elements is mandatory, and
therefore failure to satisfy any one of the elements will defeat intervention under
the Rule.”).
Here, the motions to intervene involve two underlying state court
proceedings initiated by former employees of Defendants who, among other
claims, allege to have experienced a change in compensation due to Defendant’s
financial difficulties in violation of an employment agreement. (See ECF Nos.
248-1, 250-1.) Petitioners seek to intervene so that “the Receiver can either accept
service on behalf of Mr. Yatooma1 or enter an appearance on behalf of Mr.
Yatooma so as to toll any applicable statute with respect to service under the
existing summons.” (ECF No. 248 at Pg ID 4036-37, ¶ 12; ECF No. 250 at Pg ID
No. 4153, ¶ 10.) Despite filing the motions, Petitioners fail to articulate any

Petitioners assert that “[b]y a fair reading” of the Court’s Receivership Order, the
Receiver is required to accept service of process on behalf of Defendants, arguing
that it “falls within the ambit of the duties of the Receiver.” (ECF No. 248 at Pg ID
4035, ¶ 6; ECF No. 250 at Pg ID No. 4152, ¶ 6.) However, the Receivership Order
makes no such mandate and Petitioners fail to direct the Court to any section that
Petitioner’s relied upon in reaching their conclusion.

1

3

Case 4:16-cv-13258-LVP-DRG ECF No. 258, PageID.4340 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 4

arguments as to why they should be allowed to intervene. Instead, they use vague
language stating that the “facts in this matter militate in favor of this Court giving
the Petitioner a right to intervene,” and attached the corresponding complaints for
the state lawsuits. (ECF No. 248 at Pg ID 4036, ¶ 12; ECF No. 250 at Pg ID No.
4153, ¶ 10.)
While the Court sympathizes with Petitioners’ circumstances regarding the
underlying lawsuits, the Court does not find them to have any legal, property, or
transactional interest in the promissory note and guaranty entered into by
Defendants and PNC, which would make intervention appropriate under Rule 24.
At best, the only commonality is that Mr. Yatooma may have failed to fulfill his
financial obligations to numerous parties.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioners’ motions to intervene (ECF Nos. 248,
250) are DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 23, 2023

4