Upsolve, Inc. v. James

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UPSOLVE, INC., and REV. JOHN UDO-OKON, Plaintiffs, No. 22-cv-627 (PAC) Vv. ORDER LETITIA JAMES, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendant.

Erwin Rosenberg has moved pro se for permissive intervention in this case. See ECF Nos. 63 (original motion); 64 (amended motion). Plaintiffs oppose Rosenberg’s motion. SeeECF 65. Permissive intervention lies within the Court's “broad discretion,” AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561 (2d Cir. 2005), and in exercising that discretion, the Court “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). For the reasons stated in the Court’s Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Rosenberg seeks much broader relief than Plaintiffs, and is not similarly situated. See ECF No. 68 at 17 n.6. His intervention would deeply complicate the issues presented and delay the proceedings. Therefore, his motion to intervene is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF Numbers 63 and 64.

Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED May 25, 2022 Sod i boty HONORABLE PAUL A, CROTTY United States District Judge