Summary
denying non-parties’ motion for partial summary judgment: "Until such time, if ever, that the Movants comply with the formal requirements of Rule 24(c), the parties to this suit shall not be required to respond to any motions that the Movants file."
Summary of this case from 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs.Opinion
01 Civ. 0216 (RWS)
August 7, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Purported third-party plaintiffs Millie M. Andaloro, Ralph Andaloro, Thomas Andaloro, Lana Mercado, Agostinho Dias Reis, Brandao Reis, and Castelo Branco (the "Movants") have moved for partial summary judgment against defendants Weitz Luxenberg, Perry Weitz, and Robert Gordon. These individuals have never filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore are not parties to this action. For this reason, the motion is dismissed.
The Movants filed their motion on June 12, 2002, and it was considered fully submitted on July 3, 2002.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 governs intervention of third parties into a pending action in a district court. Rule 24(c) sets forth the procedures a third party must follow in order to be permitted to intervene. A third party must serve a motion to intervene upon the parties to the action and a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. The Movants have failed to file a motion and pleading as required by Rule 24(c). This is sufficient to deny intervention. Erdman Techs. Corp. v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 1997 WL 401669, at *2 (July 16, 1997) (citing Abramson v. Pennwood Inv. Corp., 392 F.2d 759, 761-62 (2d Cir. 1968) (affirming denial of motion to intervene where movant failed to comply with formal requirements of Rule 24(c))
Until such time, if ever, that the Movants comply with the formal requirements of Rule 24(c), the parties to this suit shall not be required to respond to any motions that the Movants file.
It is so ordered.