AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-07875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In AirTourist Holdings v. Citibank, Judge Hellerstein granted Charles Mobus’s unopposed motion to intervene.
Charles Mobus was permitted to intervene in the case; the petitioners’ and respondents’ positions in the underlying matter were not decided by this order.
What happened
AirTourist Holdings, LLC, Jason Chen, and Edgar Park brought this case against Citibank, N.A., and others. Charles Mobus moved to join the case, saying he did so because the court had stated that he needed to file such a motion.
The petitioners said they did not oppose Mobus’s legal right to intervene. They opposed only his challenge to the petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted Mobus’s motion because it was unopposed and met the requirements of the federal rule governing intervention. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- AirTourist Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, N.A. · No. 1:21-cv-07875
- Alvin Hellerstein
- May 26, 2022
Background
AirTourist Holdings, LLC, Jason Chen, and Edgar Park are identified as petitioners, and Citibank, N.A., and others are identified as respondents. Charles Mobus moved to intervene, meaning to become a party in the case. The opinion says he filed the motion because, during a proceeding, the court stated that he needed to do so.
Positions of the Parties
The petitioners stated that they did not oppose Mobus’s right to intervene as a matter of law. They opposed only Mobus’s challenge to the petitioners’ application for attorney’s fees.
Ruling
The court granted Mobus’s motion to intervene. It found that the motion was unopposed and that Mobus satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which governs intervention by a person claiming an interest in a case. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified as ECF No. 21.
Note on the Opinion Text
The opinion refers to a November 30, 2021 motion and also refers to proceedings on November 17, 2022, although the order is dated May 26, 2022. This summary reports those references without resolving the apparent date inconsistency.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.