§Why CasetextPricing

Drummond Company, Inc. v. Terence P. Collingsworth, et al.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION of Non-Party Law Firms' and Attorneys' to Issue an Indicative Ruling Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 re MOTION to Intervene and to Quash and/or to Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and/or for Protective Order

3 Cited authorities

  1. Associated Bldrs., Contr. v. Herman

    166 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 41 times
    Denying motion to intervene where the proposed intervenor sought intervention almost a year after the initial lawsuit was filed and two weeks after judgment had been entered

  2. United States v. United States Steel Corp.

    548 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 46 times
    Finding that the district court did not err in denying as untimely motion to intervene after the entry of final judgment, explaining that such motions are "ordinarily looked upon with a jaundiced eye [because they] have a strong tendency to prejudice existing parties to the litigation or to interfere substantially with the orderly process of the court."

  3. Rule 62.1 - Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1   Cited 855 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Directing that, "[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may" do one of these things: " defer considering the motion; deny the motion; or state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue"