Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. General Screw Mach. Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that “[t]he availability of an alternative forum . . . ensures that [the proposed intervenor] will have an adequate remedy”
• holding fourth factor not satisfied where “[b]oth the [defendants’] Answer and the [putative intervenor’s] 2 Plaintiff acknowledges “that there is an indemnification agreement between [Defendant] and [SJTC].” (Pl.’s Mem. 12.
• denying motion to permissively intervene as unduly prejudicial where intervention would create “highly complex litigation,” and greatly expand the scope of discovery
• finding it “self-evident” that a general contractor had an cognizable interest in litigation to collect on a payment bond that the general contractor purchased in connect with a construction project

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).