Fdic v. Lewis

1 Citing case

  1. Chevron Envtl. Mgmt. v. Envtl. Prot. Corp.

    No. 1:19-cv-00807-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 19, 2020)

    Thus, prospective intervenors' reason for and the length of their delay do not compel the granting of their belated motion to intervene. See, e.g., Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Maint. Asset Mgmt. Inc., No. 17-CV-5047 (NGG) (ST), 2019 WL 4667714, at *3-8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019) (holding that a motion to intervene was untimely because it was brought seven months after the moving nonparty should have recognized its interest in the action); FDIC v. Lewis, No. 2:10-CV-439-JCM-VCF, 2015 WL 9462084, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 28, 2015) (finding a motion to intervene to be untimely, in part, because moving nonparty "offers no explanation why it waited until a writ of execution was recorded"); Martinez v. Astrue, No. C 08-4735 CW, 2014 WL 5408412, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (finding untimeliness because the moving nonparty offered no reason why the motion to intervene was brought five years after judgment had been entered).