March 26, 2013

Orly's Motion to Intervene with Judicial Watch Case Denied

by Sven Magnussen

Orly receives first class instruction for case management of a legal proceeding in civil court with a few criticisms thrown in to get her attention. The footnotes of Judicial Watch v. King, United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, are a primer for any professional struggling to be an attorney.

Footnote (1):

"Taitz repeatedly cites to Rule 24(b)(2), which governs intervention by a government or agency. However, given the language used, the Court reads her motion as invoking (b)(1), regarding permissive intervention in general."

Wow! Taitz, a licensed attorney in the State of California, incorrectly cited the Federal Rule of Civl Procedure to justify her intervention and the Court corrected her and proceeded accordingly. Thanks, Judge!

Footnote (2):

"Taitz has also failed to comply with the pleading requirements for intervention - that is, the motion must be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought - although such a defect is not always dispositive. See, e.g., Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 595 (7th Cir. 1993) ("[I]f no prejudice would result a district court has the discretion to accept a procedurally defective motion."). In this case, however, her failure to do so amplifies the problems with her motion, as there is no attached pleading that might give shape to otherwise amorphous claims."

This is cover language for the inevitable appeal by Taitz. The Court knew what she meant even though she didn't articulate it in a pleading. I see a Motion to Reconsider due gross mismanagement by private delivery carrier FedEx in the Court's near future.

Footnote (3):

"At times, Taitz identifies herself as Plaintiff-Intervenor, although she also identifies herself as President of not for profit "Defend Our Freedoms" foundation. Whether on behalf of herself or her organization, Taitz's motion fails."

Obviously, the Court has conceded this action will be appealed.

In a response to Taitz's motion, Plaintiff's state:

At this point, the parties have already exchanged settlement demands andresponses, initiated discovery requests, and negotiated and filed a Joint CaseManagement Plan. The parties’ Joint Case Management Plan was approved andadopted by the Court on or about November 13, 2012. Plaintiffs have investedsubstantial time in these efforts to date, and the Joint Case Management Plan didnot contemplate that additional parties would be joining in the lawsuit. If themotion is granted, it is likely that the deadlines agreed by the parties andestablished by the Court (including the trial date) will become impossible toachieve. Plaintiffs would be unduly prejudiced as a result, as it is unlikely thatthey would have a realistic opportunity of obtaining the relief they seek in thisaction prior to the November 2014 elections, exacerbating the injuries they have previously described to the Court.

Judicial Watch v King, United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division - Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intervene

Index of Articles by Sven Magnussen

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Greetings I am so excited I found your blog, I really found you by mistake,
while I was looking on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here
now and would just like to say many thanks for a tremendous post and a all round thrilling
blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through it all at the moment
but I have book-marked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I
will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the superb work.

Here is my weblog heavy addiction