No. 20-1513

Raj K. Patel v. Trump Corporation, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-04-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure court-discretion due-process federal-rules-civil-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure legal-intervention permissive-intervention rule-24 standing united-states-v-local-638
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-06-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Southern District Court of New York's decision was arbitrary or unfair and violated Due Process

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : . ; STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether the Southern District Court of New York’s decision was arbitrary or unfair and violated Due Process, when denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) permissive intervention, especially per United States v. Local 638, 347 F.Supp. 164, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). II. Whether rules 24(b)(1)(B) and 8(e) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. require the Southern District Court of New York to grant permissive intervention or require the Court of Appeals to overturn the Southern District Court of New York and grant permissive intervention. Il. | Whether the legal capacity of Donald J. Trump in the happenings of the main case and in the happenings of the intervention are shared common questions of law or fact for permissive intervention to be granted. i

Docket Entries

2021-08-02
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-07-08
DISTRIBUTED.
2021-06-25
Request for recusal received from petitioner.
2021-06-15
2021-06-14
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/10/2021.
2021-05-14
Waiver of right of respondent Trump Corporation, et al. to respond filed.
2020-10-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 28, 2021)

Attorneys

Raj K. Patel
Raj K. Patel — Petitioner
Trump Corporation, et al.
Joanna C. HendonAlston - Bird, LLP, Respondent