Legal Opinion
Federal Trade Commission v. Noland, Jr.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided April 2, 2021No. 2:20-cv-00047Unknown
1Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Federal Trade Commission, No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 James D Noland, Jr., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Rule 24 motion to intervene filed by a group of 710 16 individuals (“Proposed Intervenors”) (Docs. 274, 312), as well as the Proposed 17 Intervenors’ motion to expedite disposition (Doc. 307). For the reasons stated below, the 18 motion to intervene is denied and the motion to expedite disposition is granted. 19 BACKGROUND 20 I. Overview Of Parties,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Wilderness Society v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Perry v. Proposition 8 Official ProponentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Sierra Club v. Us Environmental Protection Agency, and City of Phoenix, Intervention-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Kathy Stupak-Thrall,plaintiffs-Appellees v. Daniel Glickman,defendants, the Wilderness Society, Proposed Intervenors-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.