McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump
Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-09936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In McKoy v. The Trump Corporation, Judge Schofield denied Raj K. Patel’s motion to reconsider his attempted intervention.
Raj K. Patel, whose reconsideration request and attempted intervention were denied, and the existing parties in the McKoy action, which remains subject to the court’s directions concerning Patel’s filings.
What happened
In Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump, Raj K. Patel asked to intervene and make his proposed filing the main action in the case.
Patel argued that his filing met the pleading requirements, was timely, and that he would be harmed if the matter were separated and transferred. He also argued that the existing plaintiffs could not adequately protect his interests.
Judge Lorna Schofield denied Patel’s motion because he had not met the standard for reconsideration. The order also stated that Patel had been told not to file further documents in the action and warned that continued filings could result in sanctions.
The detailed version
- McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump · No. 1:18-cv-09936
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
Raj K. Patel, appearing without a lawyer, moved to intervene in the action at Docket 659 and asked that his intervention become the main civil action. He argued that his filing satisfied the jurisdictional and pleading requirements and that his motion was timely. Patel also argued that separating and transferring the matter would prejudice him because he was not familiar with state-court law and because the existing plaintiffs could not adequately represent his interests.
Ruling
The court denied Patel’s motion for reconsideration, stating that he had not met the standard for reconsideration. The order states that Patel had previously been told to file no further documents in the action. It also states that he later filed a motion to intervene despite that direction and warns that continued filings in violation of the order may result in sanctions.
Effect of the Order
The attempted intervention and request to make Patel’s filing the main action were not granted. The order’s filing restriction and warning apply to Patel’s future filings in this action. The supplied text also contains a separate bar-order document from a different case, signed by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain; that separate document is not summarized here.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.