Amtrust Bank et al v. Lewis et al

Filing 289

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part the Woman US Entities' 270 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 10/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3
4

FDIC as Receiver for AMTRUST BANK, f/k/a
Ohio Savings Bank, a federal savings bank, et al., Case No. 2:10–cv–00439–JCM–VCF

5
6
7

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

vs.
MOTION TO INTERVENE (ECF NO. 270)
REX H. LEWIS, an individual, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9

Before the Court is All Safe, LLC; AIDS Research, LLC; Begona, LLC; Five Springs, LLC; and
10

WBS, LLC’s (the “Woman US Entities”) Motion to Intervene. (ECF No. 270). For the reasons stated
11
12
13

below, the Judgement Creditors’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On July 11, 2017, Iota Violet, LLC; Iota Coral, LLC; Iota Cinnamon, LLC; Iota Red, LLC; and

14

Iota Royal, LLC files a motion to appoint a receiver in this case. (ECF No. 265). On July 27, 2017, the

15

Woman US Entities filed a motion to intervene, arguing the motion to appoint a receiver impacted the

16

Woman US Entities’ property because of the motion’s broad scope. (ECF No. 270 at 8-10). The Court

17

allowed the Woman US Entities’ counsel to argue at the October 16, 2017 hearing in relation to the motion

18

to appoint a receiver. The Court has now recommended (1) granting the motion to appoint a receiver for

19
20
21

certain named Defendants in this case but (2) denying the receiver authority to take actions regarding any
third parties.
“On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who…claims an interest relating to

22

the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
23
24
25

may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a)(2). The Court allowed the Woman US Entities’ counsel to argue at the October 16, 2017 hearing
1

because their property interests could have been impacted by the Iota Entities’ motion to appoint a
1
2

receiver. However, because the Court now recommends that any receiver appointed in this case not be

3

granted authority over third parties, the Woman US Entities’ property interests are not, at the current state

4

of the record, implicated in this action.1

5

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Woman US Entities’ Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 270) is

7

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the Woman US Entities’
counsel was permitted to argue at the October 16, 2017 hearing relating to the motion to appoint a receiver
(ECF No. 265).

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to intervene is denied in all other respects.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
13

DATED this 24th day of October, 2017.

14
15

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Should the Court’s Report and Recommendation not be accepted, the Woman US Entities may have cause to refile their
motion to intervene.
1

25

2