-
940 F.2d 117·
5th Cir.·
1991-08-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) was not entitled to intervene as a matter of right or permissively in a contract dispute between two utilities because its interest was adequately represented and there were no extraordinary circumstances to justi
-
868 F.2d 5·
1st Cir.·
1989-02-14
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely, as the intervenors knew of the suit for over a year and their interests were adequately represented by existing parties.
-
817 F.2d 1018·
2d Cir.·
1987-05-06
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving a complex settlement agreement for disgorged profits from insider trading, and that one objector lacked standing to appeal.
-
887 F.2d 1528·
11th Cir.·
1989-11-13
·cited 1×
The United States has a right to recover its property loaned to a state agency when the agency refuses to return it, and federal courts have jurisdiction over such actions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-05
The court held that the parents' motion to intervene as of right and permissively was denied because their interests were adequately represented by the existing defendants and permissive intervention would cause undue delay and their interest was extinguished.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-22
The court granted the motion to intervene, allowing the prospective intervenor to add new claims, finding that while the initial timeliness factor weighed against intervention, the other timeliness factors and the court's discretion to extend deadlines supported granting the moti
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-31
The motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b) is denied because the movant failed to demonstrate a legally protectable interest and the proposed intervention would unduly delay the proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-17
The court held that it retains subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the intervening SBG Entities are not indispensable parties under Rule 19(b), despite the destruction of complete diversity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-21
The court held that XO Cruise, LLC's motion to intervene as of right should be granted because it met all four required elements: timeliness, a legally protectable interest, potential impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-25
The court held that intervenors do not have a right to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) because their interest in the prior judgment's preclusive effect is too collateral, but granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because common questions of law or fact exist and
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-05
The court held that Tampa Family Health Centers, Inc. (TFHC) met the requirements for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and granted its motion to intervene.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-02-12
The court denied the Curator's motion to intervene because it was untimely, conclusory, and failed to demonstrate inadequate representation by existing parties.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-12-19
The court held that Synovus Bank's motion to intervene was untimely and lacked a legally protectable interest, and that the settlement agreement was fair and in the best interest of the receivership estate.
-
958 F.2d 80·
5th Cir.·
1992-04-09
The court held that the district court prematurely granted summary judgment without affording intervenors the required ten days to respond and without adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
-
840 F.2d 72·
D.C. Cir.·
1988-02-23
The court held that the district court's denial of the family's motion to intervene was not adequately supported by the record and must be remanded for further proceedings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
1983-01-07
The court held that the charging parties' motion to intervene was untimely and that their interests were adequately represented by the EEOC, thus denying their motion.