AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A.

S.D. New York

AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 26, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-07875·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x AIRTOURIST HOLDINGS, LLC, JASON CHEN, : and EDGAR PARK. : : ORDER : : 21 Civ. 7875 (AKH) Petitioners, : -against- : : : : CITIBANK, N.A., et al., : Respondents. : --------------------------------------------------------------- x

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: On November 30, 2021, Respondent Charles Mobus moved to intervene in this case. ECF No. 21. He did so because at the proceedings on November 17, 2022 I stated that such a motion was necessary. See Conf. Tr., ECF No. 31. Petitioners state that they “do not oppose Mobus’ right to intervene as a matter of law” and only oppose “challenge to Petitioners’ application for attorneys’ fees.” Op. Br., ECF No. 27, at 5. Because the motion is unopposed and Mobus satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), the motion to intervene is granted. See D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001). The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 21.

SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2022 __/s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein____ New York, New York ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x AIRTOURIST HOLDINGS, LLC, JASON CHEN, : and EDGAR PARK. : : ORDER : : 21 Civ. 7875 (AKH) Petitioners, : -against- : : : : CITIBANK, N.A., et al., : Respondents. : --------------------------------------------------------------- x

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: On November 30, 2021, Respondent Charles Mobus moved to intervene in this case. ECF No. 21. He did so because at the proceedings on November 17, 2022 I stated that such a motion was necessary. See Conf. Tr., ECF No. 31. Petitioners state that they “do not oppose Mobus’ right to intervene as a matter of law” and only oppose “challenge to Petitioners’ application for attorneys’ fees.” Op. Br., ECF No. 27, at 5. Because the motion is unopposed and Mobus satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), the motion to intervene is granted. See D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001). The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 21.

SO ORDERED. Dated: May 26, 2022 __/s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein____ New York, New York ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge

AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A. (AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.