Darweesh et al v. Trump et al
ORDER re 88 Motion to Intervene by Vincent A. Molino, Pro Se. The Court accordingly denies Molino's motion to intervene in full. So Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 2/16/2017. (Lee, Tiffeny)
Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 163 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2426
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HAMEED KHALID DARWEESH and HAIDER
SAMEER ABDULKHALEQ ALSHAWI,on
behalf ofthemselves and others similarly situated,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,by
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
-againstDONALD J. TRUMP,U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PROTECTION,JOHN KELLY,
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN,and JAMES T.
AMON,United States District Judge:
On February 10, 2017, Vincent A. Molino filed a pro se motion to intervene in the above-
captioned case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24. Molino subsequently filed a
corrected motion to intervene on February 13, 2017. (D.E. # 88.) Because the Court construes
pro se motions liberally, it has considered Molino's motion to intervene "as of right" under Rule
24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, to intervene upon permission by the Court pursuant to Rule
24(b)(1)(B). In order to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2), "an applicant must:
(1)timely file an application,(2) show an interest in the action,(3) demonstrate that the interest
may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and (4) show that the interest is not protected
adequately by the parties to the action." In re Bank of New York Derivative Litig.. 320 F.3d 291,
300 (2d Cir. 2003)(quoting New York News. Inc. v. KheeL 972 F.2d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1992)).
Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 163 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2427
"Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements is a sufficient ground to deny the application."
Catanzano v. Catanzano Wing. 103 F.3d 223, 232 (2d Cir. 1996)(quoting Farmland Dairies v.
Comm'r. 847 F.2d 1038, 1043(2d Cir. 1988)). In his motion, Molino fails to allege an interest in
this action that is "direct, substantial, and legally protectable." Wash. Elec. Coop.. Inc. v. Mass.
Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co.. 922 F.2d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1990). As a result, Molino's motion to
intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a) is denied.
Similarly, even if the Court construes Molino's motion as proceeding under a theory of
permissive intervention, it nevertheless fails. Under Rule 24(b)(1)(B), the Court may permit
Molino to intervene on a showing that he "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action
a common question oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). This determination is committed
to the "very broad" discretion of the Court.
H.L. Havden Co. of New York. Inc. v. Siemens
Medical Svs.. Inc.. 797 F.2d 85,89(2d Cir. 1986). The Court considers "whether the intervention
will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties" and "factors
includ[ing] the nature and extent of the intervenors' interests, the degree to which those interests
are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking intervention will
significantly contribute to fiill development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the
just and equitable adjudication ofthe legal questions presented." Id (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Here, Molino has not raised a claim or defense that shares a common question
of law or fact with the pending litigation. As such, "it is highly unlikely that [Molino's]
intervention will contribute to the development of the underlying suit or to the just and equitable
adjudication" ofthe legal questions presented. U.S. ex rel. O'Donnell v. Bank of Am. Corp.. No.
12-CV-1422(JSR), 2012 WL 5974137, at *2(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2012).
Case 1:17-cv-00480-CBA Document 163 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2428
The Court accordingly denies Molino's motion to intervene in full.
Brooklyn, New York
s/Carol Bagley Amon
United States Diswic
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?