Gentile v. Sun Products et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION on Western Bank's Amended Motion for Leave to file Complaint in Intervention 25 . Western Bank provides little if any basis as to why the Court should grant intervention at this late stage, and no reason is given for its delay in filing this motion to intervene. For these reasons, the Court will deny the motion. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed) (MKR)

-TDT Gentile v. Sun Products et al

Doc. 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ROBERT GENTILE, ) ) Plaintiff/ ) Judgment Creditor, ) ) v. ) ) SUN PRODUCTS, INC., SUN ) HOCKEY, INC., and JOHN M. ) GILL, ) ) Defendants/ ) Judgment Debtors, ) ) SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, ) INC., ) ) Garnishee. ) ______________________________)

8:10CV204

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Western Bank's Amended Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention (Filing No. 25).1 Western Bank seeks to intervene pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 because it "holds a perfected security interest over funds presently being garnished" by plaintiff. Western Bank claims the garnished funds should be submitted to Western Bank to be applied on the debt defendants owe to Western Bank. Plaintiff Robert Gentile opposes Western Bank's proposed

intervention, and filed a brief in opposition (Filing No. 28). Western Bank did not file a reply brief.

The Amended Motion for Leave replaces Western Bank's Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention (Filing No. 21), which the Court will deny as moot.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Under Rule 24, a party may intervene in a civil action. Rule 24 contemplates situations under which intervention is mandatory, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), and under which intervention is permissive, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Under Rule 24(c), a motion to Western

intervene "must state the grounds for the intervention."

Bank's motion does not identify whether it seeks to intervene under subsection (a) or (b) of Rule 24, and does not otherwise state the grounds for its intervention. This deficiency in

Western Bank's motion is sufficient, in and of itself, to deny the motion. See Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. United Health

Group, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 489, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (denying motion to intervene that stated neither facts nor law in support of intervention). Regardless of whether Western Bank seeks mandatory or permissive intervention, the Court would still deny the motion because it is untimely. Both subsections (a) and (b) of Rule 24 By way of an

require a motion to intervene to be filed "timely."

Order filed on June 3, 2010 (Filing No. 12), this Court effectively disposed of the action. Western Bank filed its

initial motion to intervene on January 31, 2011, almost eight months later. In determining whether a motion to intervene is

timely, courts "consider all surrounding circumstances, but especially the stage of the litigation, the reason for the delay in seeking intervention, and any possible prejudice to the

-2-

parties already in litigation."

Tweedle v. State Farm Fire & Although Rule 24

Cas. Co., 527 F.3d 664, 671 (8th Cir. 2008).

does not specifically proscribe an intervention after litigation has terminated, an applicant for such a late intervention is required to make a strong showing. See Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v.

Moore, 193 F.3d 838, 840 (4th Cir. 1999) (denying as untimely an intervention application filed more than sixty days after the entry of final judgment). As noted, Western Bank provides little if any basis as to why the Court should grant intervention at this late stage, and no reason is given for its delay in filing this motion to intervene. For these reasons, the Court will deny the motion. A

separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. DATED this 1st day of March, 2011. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court

-3-