Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)

Citation
Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
Parent Document
Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1994-05-12

Full Text

814 chars
As the Appeals Court has observed, “[a]lthough motions to intervene after judgment are seldom ‘timely,’ see [7C] Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1916, at [444-445 (1986)], they may be allowed if the proposed intervener demonstrates a strong justification for intervention after judgment” (emphasis in original). McDonnell v. Quirk, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 126, 132 (1986). The party seeking intervention at this point must establish a compelling interest in the litigation and must justify its failure to intervene at an earlier stage of the action. See id. at 132-133. Cf. Coggins v. New England Patriots Football Club, Inc., 397 Mass. 525, *786538-539 (1986) (refusing to permit intervention by parties who had rejected earlier invitation to join litigation); Corcoran v. Wigglesworth Mach. Co., supra.