Upsolve, Inc. v. James
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-00627
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Upsolve v. James: Judge Crotty denied Rosenberg’s reconsideration motion after denying his request to intervene in plaintiffs’ case.
Erwin Rosenberg was not allowed to intervene in the Upsolve, Inc. and Rev. John Udo-Okon lawsuit, although the court said he could pursue his claim in a separate lawsuit. The original plaintiffs’ existing case was not altered by this order.
What happened
In Upsolve, Inc. v. James, Erwin Rosenberg asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to join the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The case concerns a challenge to a licensing regime, but this order addressed only Rosenberg’s effort to intervene.
The court said reconsideration requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could change its decision. Rosenberg had not identified anything that changed the standard governing permissive intervention, which allows a person to join a case only when the court permits it.
Judge Paul A. Crotty denied Rosenberg’s motion for reconsideration. The court maintained that allowing him to intervene could delay the case, confuse the issues, or harm the original parties’ rights because Rosenberg, whom the opinion describes as a disbarred lawyer, was not similarly situated to the non-lawyer plaintiffs working for a nonprofit. The court said he could bring his claim in a separate lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Upsolve, Inc. v. James · No. 1:22-cv-00627
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 27, 2022
Background
The court had previously denied Erwin Rosenberg’s motion for permissive intervention, meaning his request for permission to join the existing lawsuit. Rosenberg then moved for reconsideration of that denial.
The underlying case was 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. The opinion refers to a facial challenge to the licensing regime at issue and to the court’s prior preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, but this order did not decide the merits of Rosenberg’s challenge.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied a strict standard for reconsideration. Under that standard, reconsideration generally is not appropriate unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result.
The court explained that permissive intervention is within the court’s broad discretion. In exercising that discretion, the court must consider whether allowing intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice the original parties’ rights. Rosenberg identified no controlling decisions or information that changed this standard.
The court also rejected Rosenberg’s disagreement with its prediction that his facial challenge would fail on the merits as a reason to allow intervention. The court said that disagreement did not resolve whether adding his challenge to the existing case would delay the proceedings, confuse the issues, or prejudice the original parties. It reiterated that Rosenberg was not similarly situated to the plaintiffs because he was a disbarred lawyer and they were non-lawyers working for a nonprofit.
Disposition
The court denied Rosenberg’s motion for reconsideration. It continued to exercise its discretion to deny his motion to intervene and stated that Rosenberg remained free to assert his claim in a separate lawsuit. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 76. Judge Paul A. Crotty signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.