IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION

S.D. New York

IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION

DecidedFebruary 15, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-03208

StatusUnknown

This text of IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION (IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : 20-CV-3208 (IMF) IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND : ACTION : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Based upon the Court’s review of the motion papers, the motion of Eric S. Brittain et al. (“Proposed Intervenors”) to intervene in this action, ECF No. 96, is hereby DENIED. The Court need not and does not decide if the motion is timely as it fails because Proposed Intervenors do not, and cannot, demonstrate an interest that “may be impaired by the disposition of the action.” In re Bank of N.Y. Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d 291, 300 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussing the requirements for intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Put simply, as Defendant and Plaintiffs both explain, see ECF No. 103, at 3-7, 12-15; ECF No. 104, at 2-5, the interests of Proposed Intervenors and the putative members of the subclass they purport to represent are adequately protected by the procedural safeguards — namely, opting out or objecting — embodied in Rule 23. See, e.g., Barry’s Cut Rate Stores Inc. v. Visa, Inc., No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB), 2021 WL 2646349, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2021) (“In the Rule 23(b)(3) class context, courts in the Second Circuit have consistently held that a party seeking to intervene does not meet the impairment requirement solely due to its status as an absent class member because Rule 23 has procedural safeguards designed to protect the absent class member’s interest.” (citing cases)); Neversink Gen. Store v. Mowi USA, LLC, No. 20-CV-9293 (PAE), 2021 WL 1930320, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021) (“Courts in this Circuit . . . have routinely held that a party’s status as an absent class member, standing alone, does not meet Rule 24(a)’s impairment requirement.” (citing cases)). Accordingly, the motion to intervene is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 15, 2022 New York, New York SSE RMAN nited 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 : 20-CV-3208 (IMF) IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND : ACTION : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Based upon the Court’s review of the motion papers, the motion of Eric S. Brittain et al. (“Proposed Intervenors”) to intervene in this action, ECF No. 96, is hereby DENIED. The Court need not and does not decide if the motion is timely as it fails because Proposed Intervenors do not, and cannot, demonstrate an interest that “may be impaired by the disposition of the action.” In re Bank of N.Y. Derivative Litig., 320 F.3d 291, 300 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussing the requirements for intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Put simply, as Defendant and Plaintiffs both explain, see ECF No. 103, at 3-7, 12-15; ECF No. 104, at 2-5, the interests of Proposed Intervenors and the putative members of the subclass they purport to represent are adequately protected by the procedural safeguards — namely, opting out or objecting — embodied in Rule 23. See, e.g., Barry’s Cut Rate Stores Inc. v. Visa, Inc., No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB), 2021 WL 2646349, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2021) (“In the Rule 23(b)(3) class context, courts in the Second Circuit have consistently held that a party seeking to intervene does not meet the impairment requirement solely due to its status as an absent class member because Rule 23 has procedural safeguards designed to protect the absent class member’s interest.” (citing cases)); Neversink Gen. Store v. Mowi USA, LLC, No. 20-CV-9293 (PAE), 2021 WL 1930320, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021) (“Courts in this Circuit . . . have routinely held that a party’s status as an absent class member, standing alone, does not meet Rule 24(a)’s impairment requirement.” (citing cases)). Accordingly, the motion to intervene is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 15, 2022 New York, New York SSE RMAN nited States District Judge

In Re: Bank of New York Derivative Litigation. Mildred Kaliski and Edward J. Kaliski, Rita Hochenbaum and Rochelle Phillips, Charles H. Beck, on Behalf of the Bank of New York Company, Inc. Consolidated-Plaintiff v. J. Carter Bacot, Gerald L. Hassell, Deno D. Papageorge, Alan R. Griffith, Thomas A. Renyi, John A. Luke, Jr., William R. Chaney, William C. Richardson, Catherine Rein, Richard Barth and Donald L. Miller, the Bank of New York Company, Inc. And the Bank of New York, Nominal-Defendants-Appellees, Sergei Kotov and Vladimir Galitzine

320 F.3d 291 (Second Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-columbia-university-tuition-refund-action-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack