Upsolve, Inc. et al v. James

Filing 78

ORDER: denying 76 Motion to Intervene. While Rosenberg is free to asserthis claim in a standalone lawsuit, he will not be permitted to intervene in this case. Therefore, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF Number 76. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 6/27/2022) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UPSOLVE, INC., and
REV. JOHN UDO-OKON,
Plaintiffs,

No. 22-cv-627 (PAC)

ORDER

v.
LETITIA JAMES, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of New York,
Defendant.

Erwin Rosenberg has moved for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying his motion
for permissive intervention. See ECF No. 76. "The standard for granting such a motion is strict,
and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255,
257 (2d Cir. 1995).
As the Court previously noted, permissive intervention lies within the Court's "broad
discretion," AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560,561 (2d Cir. 2005), and in exercising that
discretion, the Court "must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties' rights," Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Rosenberg has identified no
controlling decisions or data that have altered this discretionary standard.
Accordingly, the Court continues to exercise this discretion to deny Rosenberg's motion to
intervene. Rosenberg simply disagrees with the Court's prediction that his facial challenge to the
licensing regime at issue would fail on the merits. See Opinion & Order, ECF No. 68 at 17 n.6.
That disagreement does not answer the permissive intervention question: whether considering

Rosenberg's challenge-even if meritorious-would delay the proceedings, confuse the issues, or
prejudice the original parties' rights. And as the Court has already concluded, intervention would
create these problems. Rosenberg (who is a disbarred lawyer) is not similarly situated to Plaintiffs
(who are non-lawyers working for a non-profit)-a critical distinction supporting the Court's
decision to issue a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. While Rosenberg is free to assert
his claim in a standalone lawsuit, he will not be permitted to intervene in this case. Therefore, his
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF Number 76.
Dated: New York, New York
June 27, 2022

SO ORDERED

/4l14

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY
United States District Judge