Legal Opinion
Bridgeport Guardians v. Delmonte
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided March 4, 2005No. CIV.5:78 CV 175(JBA)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Ruling on Motion of Bridgeport Police Union To Be Joined As Partg Defendant [Doc. #1295] and Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. # 1296]
ARTERTON, District Judge.
The Bridgeport Police Union (“Union”), AFSCME, Council 15, Local 1159, AFL-CIO, seeks to join this ongoing litigation as a defendant for the purpose of objecting to the Special Master’s recommendations concerning employee rotation. While the Union’s motion invokes, alternatively, Federal Rules *34of Civil Procedure 19, 20 and 22,1 its Memorandum of Law correctly states that the Union seeks to intervene pursuant to Rule 24. The Union’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Restor-A-Dent Dental Laboratories, Inc. v. Certified Alloy Products, Inc., Unigard Mutual Insurance Company, Intervener-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Ionian Shipping Company, and Allied Chemical Corporation, Intervenor-Appellant v. British Law Insurance Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- United States v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,121 Leo M. Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc., Herbert N. Somekh v. Angelo C. Pappalardo, Intervening Stockholders-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
3Cited by1 opinion
- Association of Connecticut Lobbyists LLC v. GarfieldDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007