Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CALDWELL BANK & TRUST CO. v. DICKERSON, 16-0403. (2016)

Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20160509921 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER 1 KAREN L. HAYES , Magistrate Judge . Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a motion for intervention [doc. # 5], filed by Movant Commercial Capital Bank. Movant avers that Plaintiff Caldwell Bank & Trust Co. seeks the seizure of farm equipment and farm products owned by the Defendants. Id. at 1. Movant claims "a priming security interest in the seized farm equipment and asserts that the farm products may have been comingled [
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER1

Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a motion for intervention [doc. # 5], filed by Movant Commercial Capital Bank. Movant avers that Plaintiff Caldwell Bank & Trust Co. seeks the seizure of farm equipment and farm products owned by the Defendants. Id. at 1. Movant claims "a priming security interest in the seized farm equipment and asserts that the farm products may have been comingled [sic] with farm products owned by other entities operated by Thomas Allen Dickerson which products are pledged to secure debts owed to Commercial Capital Bank by those entities." Id. at 2.

FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2) requires a court to permit intervention for a proposed intervenor who "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action" and who is "so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." As the holder of a security interest in the farm equipment and farm products at issue, the proposed intervenor Commercial Capital has an interest in this case. The proposed intervenor's ability to protect that interest may be impaired through resolution of this case. In sum, because this motion is unopposed and because the proposed intervenor meets the requirements to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2), the court will grant the motion to intervene. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant motion for intervention [doc. # 5], is GRANTED.

FootNotes


1. As this Motion is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this Court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and LR 74.1(W).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer