Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Cardenas
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
*237 MEMORANDUM RE: MOVANTS’ MOTIONS FOR INTERVENTION OR JOINDER AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
BAYLSON, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Seldom do people or entities fight hard to become parties to litigation. However, the existence of an insurance policy may provide the ordinarily lacking motivation. This dispute resonates from Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro: Did the Count properly “intervene” in Figaro’s desire to marry and Susanna, and did the putative stud, Cherubino, properly “join” in the resolution?
This case requires exploration of joinder and intervention pursuant to Rules 19…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-LarrainSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Scottsdale Insurance v. RSE Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Security National Insurance v. AmchinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2021
- CRUM & FORSTER INDEMNITY COMPANY v. SIDELINES TREE SERVICE, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
- CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. STRONG CONTRACTORS, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.