Filed: Jun. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2013
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge. This matter is before the court sua sponte. On May 29, 2013, I entered an order [#23] 1 denying without prejudice Chevron Corporation's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene in the 28 U.S.C. 1782 Action Initiated by the Republic of Ecuador And Dr. Diego Garc a Carri n [#20] filed May 24, 2013. I denied the motion based on my conclusion that the motion does not include a statement showing that the moving party complied
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge. This matter is before the court sua sponte. On May 29, 2013, I entered an order [#23] 1 denying without prejudice Chevron Corporation's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene in the 28 U.S.C. 1782 Action Initiated by the Republic of Ecuador And Dr. Diego Garc a Carri n [#20] filed May 24, 2013. I denied the motion based on my conclusion that the motion does not include a statement showing that the moving party complied ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This matter is before the court sua sponte. On May 29, 2013, I entered an order [#23]1 denying without prejudice Chevron Corporation's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene in the 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Action Initiated by the Republic of Ecuador And Dr. Diego García Carrión [#20] filed May 24, 2013. I denied the motion based on my conclusion that the motion does not include a statement showing that the moving party complied with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. See order [#23] at 5 and 6, ¶ 6.
After my May 29, 2013, order entered, counsel for the proposed intervenor, Chevron Corporation, called the court to note that a certificate of compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A., was included in the motion on the page following the signature page. In light of the fact that Chevron demonstrated its compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. in its motion to intervene, I will vacate that portion of my earlier order [#23] to the extent it denied the motion to intervene [#20] without prejudice for failure to certify compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.
Generally, the motion to intervene [#20] appears to have validity. I note, however, that Chevron Corporation has not complied with a key requirement of FED. R. CIV. P. 24, the rule under which Chevron claims entitlement to intervene in this case. Rule 24(c) requires that a motion to intervene "be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." The motion to intervene is not accompanied by such a pleading.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That my Order [#23] filed May 29, 2013, at 6, ¶ 6, is VACATED to the extent it denies Chevron Corporation's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene in the 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Action Initiated by the Republic of Ecuador And Dr. Diego García Carrión [#20] filed May 24, 2013, for failure to certify compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.;
2. That Chevron Corporation's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene in the 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Action Initiated by the Republic of Ecuador And Dr. Diego García Carrión [#20] filed May 24, 2013, is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 24(c).
