Timeliness Of Intervention

177 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Penick v. Columbus Educ. Ass'n
  574 F.2d 889· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Columbus Education Association (CEA) was not entitled to intervene as a matter of right because its interests were adequately represented by the existing parties and its application was untimely. Permissive intervention was also denied due to the late stag
• Allard v. Frizzell
  536 F.2d 1332· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of intervention, finding the Department of Justice would adequately represent the applicants' interests.
• Iowa State Univ. Research Found., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.
  459 F.2d 447· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for leave to intervene filed after the trial had commenced.
• Hensley v. Westin Hotel
  113 F.4th 1327· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction when an indispensable party, Hartford, intervened and destroyed complete diversity of citizenship, requiring vacatur of the summary judgment.
• In re Application
  2010 WL 326069· S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the third-party movant met the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).
• Sweetwater Country Club Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. The Huskey Co.
  613 So. 2d 936· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-02-19 ·cited 6×
  Sweetwater Country Club Homeowners' Association appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene in a dispute over ownership of recreational facilities historically used by members of three homeowners associations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the denial
• Caterino v. Barry
  922 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the union and its members' motion to intervene in the liability phase of the lawsuit because the motion was untimely.
• Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co.
  922 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Vermont Department of Public Service (VDPS) has the statutory capacity to intervene, it failed to meet the requirements for intervention as of right or permissive intervention under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n
  865 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appeals filed outside the prescribed time limits are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to intervene as untimely.
• Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  806 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the universities' motions to intervene were properly denied because their interests were adequately represented by the existing defendants and Rice's motion was untimely. The denial of permissive intervention was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Yonkers Bd. OF Educ.
  801 F.2d 593· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Homeowners' motion to intervene as untimely.
• United States & Robert Sarges v. First Fid. Bank OF Colome
  631 F.2d 568· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the taxpayer had a statutory right to intervene in the IRS summons enforcement action and that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely.
• R.I. Fed'n OF Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Norberg
  630 F.2d 850· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the parents failed to plead a colorable defense to the challenged statute, thus their motion to intervene as of right was properly denied.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Tipco, Inc.
  554 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a creditor's motion to intervene after the bar date for challenging asset distribution methods.
• Crown Fin. Corp. v. Winthrop Lawrence Corp. & Lammot DuPont Copeland, Jr.
  531 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of the intervenor's motion to intervene was within the district court's discretion and properly exercised.
• Brennan v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
  519 F.2d 718· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's motion to intervene in a private suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was timely, and reversed the denial of intervention.
• Arkamel Ray Sales v. R.C. Marshall
  873 F.2d 115· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that expenses for transporting state prisoners to federal court in response to a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum are not taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and that a state entity's motion to intervene to recover such costs was untimely.
• United States v. Covington Techs. Co.
  967 F.2d 1391· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's motion to intervene to appeal a dismissal with prejudice was timely and that the dismissal was improper without the Attorney General's written consent.
• Southmark Corp. v. Cagan
  950 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of both intervention as of right and permissive intervention was proper because the appellant failed to meet the requirements for timeliness, potential impairment, and adequate representation, and permissive intervention would unduly delay the proce
• Fleming v. Lind-Waldock & Co.
  922 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an equity receiver lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of investors, intervention was untimely, and there is no federal statutory or equitable right to contribution under the Commodity Exchange Act.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Breznay
  873 F.2d 301· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action, upholding the denial of the appellant utilities' request to participate in the administrative proceedings. The court found that the request was untimely and that the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) ac
• Ass'n OF Prof'l Flight Attendants v. Patt A. Gibbs
  804 F.2d 318· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the motion to intervene untimely, as the timeliness clock began when a settlement became likely, not when the movants first had notice of potential issues.
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n & N.J. State Fed'n of Sportsmen's Clubs v. Anne M. Gorsuch
  744 F.2d 963· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that plaintiffs' suit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on consent decrees because they failed to appeal the denial of their motion to intervene.
• LaROUCHE v. Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  677 F.2d 256· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-28 ·cited 4×
  Appellant was entitled to intervene as a matter of right because she met the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2), including timely application, a recognizable interest, potential impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
• Burkhalter v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  676 F.2d 291· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying appellants' motion to intervene to appeal the class action dismissal, but affirmed the district court's decision to strike the class action allegations.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bloomberg
  299 F.2d 315· 1st Cir.· 1962-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the SEC's motions to intervene and for leave to sue due to the untimely prosecution of its claims.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Telnet, Inc.
  967 F. Supp. 2d 1008· S.D. Fla.· 1999-08-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Linda Pais's motion to intervene, both as of right and permissively, should be denied because her state class action was not impaired by the federal judgment and intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice.
• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  986 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and affirmed the denial of intervention as modified.
• Columbus-America Discovery Grp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co.
  974 F.2d 450· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's finding of abandonment was not clearly erroneous and that the law of finds, not salvage, should apply to long-lost wrecks.
• Engra, Inc. v. Gabel
  958 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the attorney's motion to intervene was untimely, and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention and grant of summary judgment to the opposing party. Sanctions were imposed against the attorney.
• United States v. Yonkers Bd. OF Educ.
  902 F.2d 213· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the proposed intervenors, members of the Parks Board, lacked standing in their official capacities and, even if they had standing individually, their motion to intervene was untimely and their interests were adequately represented by existing parties.
• Getty OIL Co. v. Dep't OF Energy
  890 F.2d 425· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Utilities' motion to intervene was untimely and that they lacked a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings, affirming the district court's denial.
• Carold Campbell v. Hall-Mark Elecs. Corp.
  808 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's motion to intervene was untimely because he knew or should have known of his interest and the potential adverse effects of the settlement long before filing the motion, given his extensive involvement in the litigation and settlement n
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  675 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely.
• Sumitomo Metal Indus., Ltd. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
  669 F.2d 703· C.C.P.A.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a statutory right to intervene must be exercised promptly after the applicant knows or should know of the proceeding, and that a 16-month delay after becoming aware of the action, particularly after significant court decisions, renders the intervention untimel
• Bragg v. Chevrolet
  245 F. Supp. 2d 1235· M.D. Fla.· 2003-02-14 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the motion for rehearing, affirming its prior dismissal of TILA claims because the transactions were not consummated under Florida law, and struck an untimely motion to intervene.
• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  994 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and in denying intervention to Rutherford Institute.
• Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs.
  844 F.2d 1050· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the developer was not an indispensable party to the contractor's suit to enforce a joint and several arbitration award against the bank, and that the contractor's motion to intervene, while potentially lacking grounds for intervention as of right, should not h
• Hodges v. United States Gov't
  762 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 1×
  A taxpayer's statutory right to intervene in IRS summons enforcement proceedings is limited to district court actions and does not extend to appeals, and a late request to intervene on appeal is untimely.
• De Ford v. Koutoulas
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-03
  The court held that a non-party's motion to intervene was untimely and failed to comply with local rules, warranting denial.
• Montgomery v. Seminole Hard Rock Digit., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-10
  The Seminole Tribe of Florida's motion to intervene as of right is granted because the defendant does not adequately represent the Tribe's unique interests in defending its sovereign immunity and gaming rights.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Start Connecting LLC
  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.
• Doe v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd
  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.
• Rinaldi Enters. of Fla., LLC v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-13
  The court granted a non-party subcontractor's motion to intervene as of right in a general contractor's lawsuit against a surety, finding that the intervenor met the requirements for intervention and that supplemental jurisdiction over its counterclaims was proper despite destroy
• De Fernandez v. Seaboard Marine Ltd
  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
• Garcia v. Stillman
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-15
  The court held that the movant's interest in potentially becoming mayor was not a legally protectible interest sufficient for intervention, either as of right or permissively.
• Metalizing Tech. Servs. LLC v. Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-04-14
  The court held that permissive intervention is appropriate, but LEAD must provide evidence of its citizenship to establish federal jurisdiction.
• United States v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-12
  The court held that the general contractor, Haskell Company, should be permitted to intervene permissively in a subcontractor's Miller Act suit against sureties because its intervention is timely, shares common questions of law and fact, and will not unduly delay or prejudice the
• Vila Rodriguez v. United States
  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.
• GMF Elcm Fund L.P.
  Del. Ch.· 2021-09-22
  The Court held that the Claimant is entitled to indemnification under the LLC Agreements for his fees and expenses incurred in the New Jersey Litigation and for his fees and expenses in pursuing the present indemnification claim. The Court also held that the Claimant is entitled