Upsolve, Inc. v. James
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Upsolve, Inc. v. James, Judge Crotty denied Erwin Rosenberg’s request to join the case because it would broaden and delay the proceedings.
Erwin Rosenberg’s request to join the case was denied, and the proceedings involving Upsolve, Inc., Rev. John Udo-Okon, and Letitia James continued without him.
What happened
In Upsolve, Inc. v. James, Erwin Rosenberg, who was representing himself, asked to join the case as an additional party. The plaintiffs opposed his request.
The court said Rosenberg sought much broader relief than the plaintiffs and was not similarly situated to them. The court also concluded that allowing him to join would complicate the issues and delay the case.
Judge Crotty denied Rosenberg’s request to intervene and directed the clerk to close the two motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Upsolve, Inc. v. James · No. 1:22-cv-00627
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 25, 2022
Background
Erwin Rosenberg moved to intervene without a lawyer in the case brought by Upsolve, Inc. and Rev. John Udo-Okon against Letitia James, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York. Rosenberg filed an original motion and an amended motion. The plaintiffs opposed both motions.
Legal standard
The court considered permissive intervention, which allows a person who is not already a party to join a case when the court permits it. The court explained that this decision is within its broad discretion and that it must consider whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to the original parties’ rights.
Ruling
The court relied on reasons stated in its earlier opinion granting the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. It concluded that Rosenberg sought much broader relief than the plaintiffs and was not similarly situated to them. The court further found that allowing Rosenberg to intervene would deeply complicate the issues and delay the proceedings.
The court denied Rosenberg’s motion to intervene and directed the clerk to close the motions at ECF Numbers 63 and 64. This order addressed only Rosenberg’s request to join the case; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.