Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID JANKOWSKI PAULA JANKOWSKI Interested Party-Appellant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Paula Jankowski’s motion to intervene as a matter of right in federal foreclosure proceedings initiated by the government against real property owned by her husband, David Jankowski, following his criminal conviction for drug trafficking and health care fraud. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Paula’s motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). The court applied the five-factor test for timeliness established in *Bailey v. White*, which considers: (1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenor knew or should have known of their interest; (4) prejudice to original parties from the failure to intervene promptly; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances. The appellate court found that all factors weighed against intervention because Paula waited over a year after the lawsuit commenced to file her motion, filing only two days before the summary judgment hearing despite receiving notice of the complaint and motion for summary judgment at the outset. Furthermore, discovery had closed, dispositive motions deadlines had passed, and summary judgment had already been granted when she moved to intervene. The court noted that allowing intervention at this late stage would cause undue delay and prejudice to the government’s ability to collect restitution proceeds, while Paula failed to develop any argument regarding unusual circumstances or constitutional violations. Because timeliness is a threshold requirement under Rule 24(a), the court declined to address whether Paula possessed a substantial legal interest in the property or whether her interest was adequately represented by other parties. As a result of this decision, the district court’s order granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and authorizing the foreclosure sale remains in effect, and Paula Jankowski is barred from intervening in the proceedings to claim an interest in the property or its proceeds.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.