Opinion ID: 204770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: NPMHU's Motions for Leave to Intervene and for Relief From Judgment

Text: On August 29, 2008three months after the District Court issued its order enforcing the ASFM-100 SettlementNPMHU filed a motion for leave to intervene under Rule 24 and a motion for relief from the District Court's orders of enforcement under Rule 60(b). The District Court granted NPMHU's motion to intervene, finding that NPMHU's legal interests were affected by the disposition of the action, but the Court denied NPMHU's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment because NPMHU had unreasonably delayed seeking relief and could not show excusable neglect or unfair surprise under Rule 60(b)(1). (Supp. App. at 5-6.) All three parties then appealed.