Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hashem v. D'Angelo

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 28, 2017

SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN D'ANGELO, D'ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D'ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC., Defendants.

          AMENDED MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          Indira Talwani United States District Judge

         The underlying case arises from a dispute between two former law partners regarding, inter alia, the assets of their law firm, D'Angelo and Hashem, LLC (“D&H”). Before this court is Jennifer M. Carrion's Motion to Intervene [#26] as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Carrion, a former employee of D&H, is a judgment creditor of Hashem and D&H, following a November 22, 2011, jury verdict finding them liable for pregnancy discrimination. She seeks to pursue cross-claims against all parties in the underlying action. Defendants Stephen D'Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group oppose the motion.[1]

         For the following reasons, Ms. Carrion's Motion to Intervene [#26] is ALLOWED.

         I. Standard

         Rule 24(a)(2) allows intervention as a matter of right if a would-be intervenor meets four requirements:

1. The application must be timely . . .;
2. The applicant must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;
3. Disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede that applicant's ability to protect the interest; and
4. The applicant must show that the interest will not be adequately represented by existing parties.

         Conservation Law Found. of New Eng., Inc. v. Mosbacher, 966 F.2d 39, 41 (1st Cir. 1992). A would-be intervenor who does not meet any one of these requirements cannot intervene as a matter of right. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629, 637 (1st Cir. 1989). The “imprecision” of Rule 24(a)(2)'s individual requirements mandates, however, that they “‘be read not discretely, but together, ' and always with a commonsense view of the overall litigation.” Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 983 (2d Cir.1984)). “Because small differences in fact patterns can significantly affect the outcome, the very nature of a Rule 24(a)(2) inquiry limits the utility of comparisons among published opinions.” Id.

         II. Analysis

         Since there is no dispute as to the timeliness of the motion, the court considers the remaining three requirements for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).

         A. Interest in the Property or Transaction

         To claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, a would-be intervenor must show that he or she has a “significantly protectable interest.” Id. at 205 (quoting Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971)). “Potential economic harm to a would-be intervenor is a factor that warrants serious consideration in the interest inquiry.” Id. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.