Oak Plaza, LLC v. David T. Buckingham, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denies Daniel Buckingham’s renewed motion to intervene as of right or permissively in Oak Plaza, LLC’s state-law fraud action. The court concludes that the motion is untimely, Buckingham’s interests are adequately represented by Oak Plaza, and intervention would prejudice the existing parties and delay resolution of the case.

Holdings

1. Daniel Buckingham was not entitled to intervene as of right because his renewed motion was untimely and he failed to show that his interests were inadequately represented by Oak Plaza.
2. The court denied permissive intervention because the motion was untimely and allowing intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the existing parties' rights.
3. The court denied the movant's additional requests because the motion to intervene was denied and Daniel Buckingham was not a party to the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Daniel Buckingham was entitled to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
2. Whether the court should permit Daniel Buckingham to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).
3. Whether the court should grant additional requests included in the intervention motion, including directives concerning the Oak Plaza file, mediation, judgment, and trial.

Disposition

other