City of Chicago v. Wexler (In re Wexler), 477 B.R. 709

Wexler filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Florida on September 8, 2010, with interim trustee Leslie Osborne appointed.
The deadline to object to Wexler’s discharge under § 727 initially set for December 20, 2010, was repeatedly extended for other parties, including the City, ultimately to March 21, 2011.
On February 11, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and David R. Herzog was appointed as the new Chapter 7 trustee.
The City filed a discharge objection on February 28, 2012; the trustee never extended his deadline beyond January 14, 2011 and did not file a discharge objection before that date.
The trustee moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the City’s adversary proceeding against Wexler; the City supported the motion and Wexler opposed it.
The court denied the intervention motion, finding no unconditional right to intervene and that the motion was untimely, with additional concerns about substitution versus intervention and Rule 4004 deadlines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intervention of right under Rule 24(a)	Herzog argues an unconditional right to intervene under § 323.	Wexler contends no unconditional statutorily granted right to intervene exists.	No unconditional right to intervene; Rule 24(a) not satisfied.
Timeliness of the intervention motion	Motion timely under Rule 24.	Motion untimely since filed long after the discharge deadline.	Untimely; cannot be granted as of right.
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)	If not as of right, may intervene permissively due to common questions or similar interests.	Untimeliness forecloses permissive intervention.	Untimely; no permissive intervention.

City of Bloomington, Ind. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1987) (timeliness assessment for intervention considers all circumstances)
Reid L. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 289 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2002) (burden on party seeking intervention to show criteria are met)
Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 316 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2003) (examines timeliness factors and discretion in intervention)
Klaas v. Donovan, 411 B.R. 756 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009) (intervention timing considerations in discharge context)
In re Donovan, 411 B.R. 756 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009) (distinguishes substitution from intervention)
In re Zyndorf, 44 B.R. 77 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984) (substitution vs. intervention considerations)
In re Low, 8 B.R. 716 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1981) (limits on intervention where original plaintiff remains)
520 S. Michigan Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Shannon, 549 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 2008) (court may take judicial notice of related docket information)
Cantwell & Cantwell v. Vicario, 464 B.R. 776 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (substitution context in discharge adversaries)