Opinion
Civil Action 23-4283
11-21-2024
GREENWICH TERMINALS LLC and GLOUCESTER TERMINALS LLC v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS, et al.
ORDER
KEARNEY, J
AND NOW, this 21st day of November 2024, upon considering non-parties Enstructure DCT LLC and Diamond State Port Corporation's post-judgment Motion to intervene (ECF 46), Defendants' Opposition (ECF 51), Plaintiffs' Opposition (ECF 52) also seeking to strike the nonparties' contemporaneously filed Answer (ECF 47), Plaintiffs' Motion to disqualify Holland & Knight LLP from representing Enstructure DCT LLC (ECF 53), and for reasons in today's accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED we DENY:
1. Non-parties Enstructure DCT LLC and Diamond State Port Corporation's Motion to intervene (ECF 46);
2. Plaintiffs' request (non-compliant with Rule 7(b)(1)) to strike the non-parties' Answer (ECF 47) guided by the Supreme Court's requirement in Rule 24(c) the non-parties' Motion must be “accompanied” by the pleading, noting the Answer does not inform the dispositive untimeliness obstacle or create prejudice in a separate filing, we are mindful the 2007 Amendments to Rule 24 do not alter the substance of the earlier requirement of “attaching” the pleading but we are also mindful of Rule 1 's mandate to construe Rule 24 for a just result after finding no prejudice arising from simultaneously filing the Answer (ECF 47) separate from the Motion (46); and,
3. Plaintiffs' Motion to disqualify Holland & Knight LLP from further representing Enstructurc DCT LLC (ECF 53) as moot as there arc no further proceedings before this Court involving Enstructure DCT LLC.