IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 10, 2006
JUANITA HAMMOND, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFF,
SOLUTIA INC. EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Applicants'*fn1 Motion to Intervene (Doc. 17). On its face, the instant matter seems appropriate for intervention pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24(b)(2). Further, the parties in the
instant matter do not object to the Motion to Intervene. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Applicants' Motion to Intervene (Doc. 17). Applicants will now be referred to as "Plaintiff-Intervenors."
The Court notes that Plaintiff-Intervenors filed several pleadings shown on the docket in the instant case before their Motion to Intervene was granted, so technically, these were "proposed" pleadings. Now that the Motion to Intervene has been granted, the Court also ORDERS the following be deemed FILED INSTANTER:
* Plaintiff-Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel (Doc. 23) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 24);
* Plaintiff-Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Motion to Consolidate Cases (Doc. 25) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 26); and
* Plaintiff-Intervenors' Reply to Response to Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay (Doc. 27).
Attached to their Motion to Intervene (Doc. 17) was the following proposed motion: Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Stay, Initial Opposition to Motion to Appoint Interim Lead Counsel and Request for Leave to File Additional Response to Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel and supporting memorandum. Plaintiff-Intervenors are hereby allowed to file this motion and supporting memorandum, but because these do not already appear on the docket, they cannot be deemed filed instanter.*fn2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of April, 2006.
David R Herndon United States District Judge