Upsolve v. James
Upsolve, Inc., and Rev, John Udo-Okon v. Letitia James, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Upsolve v. James, Judge Kaplan addressed Erwin Rosenberg’s request to intervene in an antitrust dispute, but the excerpt does not state the outcome.
Upsolve, Inc., Rev, John Udo-Okon, Letitia James in her official capacity, and proposed intervenor Erwin Rosenberg.
What happened
Upsolve, Inc., and Rev, John Udo-Okon v. Letitia James concerns a case in which the court had entered a preliminary injunction, and an appeal was pending. The opinion addresses Erwin Rosenberg’s second request to join the case.
Rosenberg sought permission to intervene so he could claim that New York’s unauthorized-practice-of-law laws and their enforcement violate federal antitrust law. The opinion says Rosenberg and the existing plaintiffs had similar legal problems involving the defendant and could seek relief through essentially the same antitrust argument. His proposed claim sought an injunction under federal law, 15 U.S.C. § 26.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan explained that permission to intervene is a matter for the court’s discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(A). The provided excerpt does not state whether the motion was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Upsolve v. James · No. 1:22-cv-00627
- Lewis Kaplan
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
The court stated that the case was at a preliminary stage because it had entered a preliminary injunction and that injunction was on appeal. The provided text concerns Erwin Rosenberg’s second motion for permissive intervention—his request for permission to become a party to the existing case.
Requested Intervention
Rosenberg sought to intervene to assert that the defendant violated federal antitrust law through New York’s unauthorized-practice-of-law laws and their enforcement. The opinion states that the existing plaintiffs and Rosenberg had a similar legal problem involving the defendant and could obtain relief using the same essential antitrust argument. Rosenberg’s proposed complaint sought injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 26 for threatened loss or damage caused by an antitrust-law violation.
Legal Standard
The court quoted the rule that permissive intervention is committed to the court’s discretion. It cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(A) and a Supreme Court decision discussing that standard.
Disposition
The provided excerpt does not include an express ruling granting or denying Rosenberg’s second motion. It therefore does not establish the motion’s disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.