From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metz v. Unizan Bank

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 11, 2008
CASE NO. 5:05 CV 1510 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:05 CV 1510.

April 11, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli. The Report and Recommendation (ECF #546) is hereby ADOPTED. Between December 20, 2007 and January 16, 2008, a year-and-a-half to two-and-a-half years after the case was filed, and after several significant issues had already been decided, and dismissal motions on the remaining claims had been fully briefed, 104 motions to intervene were filed in this putative class action (ECF #414-52, 454-80, 482-506, 508-15, 517-21). The motions to intervene contained claims that had already been addressed by the Court in prior a ruling, (ECF #377), contained claims against new defendants that had been specifically disallowed by the Court in a prior Order, (ECF # 379), and contained claims that had already been fully briefed by the current parties, and were being addressed by the Court.

Magistrate Vecchiarelli found that the motions to intervene were not timely, that the putative interveners ability to protect their interests would not be impaired if intervention were denied, and that the current parties more than adequately represented the putative interveners interests before the court. Consequently, intervention of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) is not warranted. Further, intervention at this stage of the proceedings would substantially delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and further prejudice the parties. Therefore, permissive intervention is also unwarranted.

No timely objections have been filed to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless the Court has fully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the putative interveners' arguments and all of the applicable law. The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation fully and correctly addresses all of the arguments raised by the parties, and properly and justly analyzes the applicable law. This Court, therefore, adopts the Magistrate's Report in its entirety. The Motions to Intervene are hereby DENIED. (ECF # 414-52, 454-80, 482-506, 508-15, 517-21). IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Metz v. Unizan Bank

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 11, 2008
CASE NO. 5:05 CV 1510 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Metz v. Unizan Bank

Case Details

Full title:CAROL METZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. UNIZAN BANK, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 11, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 5:05 CV 1510 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2008)

Citing Cases

Pate v. HNB Nat'l Bank

Twenty-eight of the would-be intervenors are plaintiffs in this action. The motions to intervene in Metz were…