Contract analysis
Clause-by-clause risk read on any document of the firm. Pick a contract, or open any document from a matter.
Contract analysis / opposition-to-motion-to-intervene.docx
opposition-to-motion-to-intervene.docx
High · 2
Medium · 1
Standard · 0
I. INTRODUCTION
High
⚑ Non-compete / exclusivity restraint
I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust ("Fairwater" or "FREIT"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to the Motion to Intervene as of Right filed by non-party Pinnacle Shores Bank, National Association ("Pinnacle Shores" or the "Bank") on January 14, 2022, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230(a). For the reasons set forth below, t
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
High
⚑ Non-compete / exclusivity restraint
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS A. The Underlying Dispute Fairwater is a Maryland-organized, publicly traded real estate investment trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FWTR." Fairwater is headquartered at 1400 Waverly Park Drive, Suite 600, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, and invests primarily in industrial and logistics properties throughout the southeastern United States. As of its most r
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.2
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.230 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230(a) provides: Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (a) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (b) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applica
IV. ARGUMENT
Medium
⚑ Liability cap to check against exposure
IV. ARGUMENT A. Pinnacle Shores' Interest Is Derivative of and Subordinate to Ridgemark's Interest and Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 1.230(a) Pinnacle Shores fails to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this action. The Bank's claimed interest is entirely derivative of — and subordinate to — Ridgemark's own claim to the Cross-Parcel Easement. Pinnacle Sh
V. CONCLUSION
V. CONCLUSION Pinnacle Shores Bank, N.A. has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating entitlement to intervention as of right under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230(a). The Bank's interest as Ridgemark's construction lender is entirely derivative of Ridgemark's claim to the Cross-Parcel Easement, does not constitute a direct and legally protectable interest in the subject matter of this action, and does not s