As noted by the Chancery Court in Hanover v. Morrison, “an essential prerequisite to intervention is timeliness, which should be equated with diligence and promptness. One who is interesting in pending litigation should not be permitted to stand on the sidelines…”118 N.J. Super,136, 141 (Ch. Div.), certif. denied, 62 N..J., 427 (1973). The applicable standard for determining the timeliness of a motion to intervene as a matter of right is whether the “granting of the motion will unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the original parties.” Meehan v. K.D. Partners, L.P.,317 N.J. Super.,563, 568 (App. Div. 1998). See NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973) (affirming denial of intervention as untimely where interveners knew or should have known about the case much earlier due to a New York Times article discussing it) (suspend on other grounds), See Metallix Ref., Inc. v. Fry’s Metals, Inc., No. A-4296-12T3, 2014 N.J. Super, Unpub. Lexis 2051, at 17 (App. Div. Aug. 19, 2014) (McDonough Cert., Exhibit K) (affirming denial of motion to intervene where extensive discovery had been exchanged between the parties and intervention would cause party to recast its position and engage in disovery to support an further its new course and its new exposure. See United States v. BASF-Inmont Corp., 1995 U.S. App, LEXIS 9158, at 11 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 1995( (affirming denial of motion to intervene that sought ‘a second bite at the apple”) (McDonough Cert.,); New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F. 2d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1992) (denying intervention as of right due to an “inappropriate interest in support of intervention”).
A litigants motion to intereven ina Superior Court action and bring claims that he or she has already brought against the same defendants in federal court is barred by the entire controversy docrine. Spring Creek Holding, Co. v. Shinnihon U.S.A., Co., Ltd. No. A-0318-04T3, 2005 N.J. Super., Unpub. LEXIS 5, at 8-9 9 (App. Div. Dec. 12, 2005)(We are distrubed at the apparently duplicative proceedings in this action, and by [the] attempt to intervene here, in violation o the spirit of the entire controversy doctrine.”) New Jersey courts “do not countenance multiple suits between the same parties on the same issues.” Id. at 9.