Barker et al v. Cheddi Jagan International Airport Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-22684-Civ-BECERRA/TORRES
LEX BARKER, an individual, ISS AVIATION
INC. (U.S.), a Wyoming corporation, and
INSTANT SECURITY SERVICE INC. (DE),
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHEDDI JAGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, THE
COOPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA,
a foreign government, RAMESH GHIR, an
individual, JOHN DOE 1, an individual, and
JOHN DOE 2, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ON KHAMRAJ LALL’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
This matter is before the Court upon Khamraj Lall’s (“Lall”) Motion to
Intervene 	for 	Protective 	Relief, 	to 	Enforce 	Prior 	Dismissal, 	and 	to 	Preclude
Relitigation of Settled Issues [D.E. 15]. The Plaintiffs have responded to the Motion
[D.E. 25], to which the Movant has replied [D.E. 28]. 	The Motion, therefore, is ripe
for disposition. After review of the briefing, record, and relevant authorities, and for
the reasons set forth below, the Movant’s Motion is DENIED.1
1 On November 11, 2025, the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra referred this matter to
the Undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition. [D.E. 43]
Case 1:25-cv-22684-JB Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
1. 	Lall seeks to intervene to protect his “legal and reputational interests”
that may arise in this case. Lall claims that he is reputationally harmed because he
has been accused of engaging in “serious criminal activity, corruption, and conduct.”
[D.E. 15 at 2]. Despite his current confinement in prison following conviction for drug
smuggling following a guilty plea, Lall maintains his innocence in this Motion and
claims he only pled guilty due to ineffective counsel. Id. He argues that he is sure
that his convictions will be overturned upon completion of pending appeals. Id. As it
stands, Lall remains a convicted drug trafficker, and it is therefore unconvincing that
Lall’s accusation that he engaged in that very behavior will result in increased
reputational damage any more than his federal conviction.
2. 	Lall relies on Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the legal
basis for his claim.
3. 	Rule 	24(a)(2) 	permits 	intervention 	when 	the 	proposed 	intervenor
“claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the
action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair
or 	impede 	the 	movant's 	ability 	to 	protect 	its 	interest, 	unless 	existing 	parties
adequately represent that interest.”
4. 	Rule 24(b)(1)(B) allows intervention when the proposed intervenor, upon
timely motion, shows he “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a
common question of law or fact.” See Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th
Cir. 1989) (citing Sellers v. United States, 709 F.2d 1469, 1471 (11th Cir.1983) (“A
party seeking to intervene under Rule 24(b)(2) must show that: (1) his application to
Case 1:25-cv-22684-JB Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 2 of 4

3
intervene is timely; and (2) his claim or defense and the main action have a question
of law or fact in common. The district court has the discretion to deny intervention
even if both of those requirements are met, and its decision is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion”)).
5. 	Lall has not identified any property or transaction that is the subject of
the action pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2). Lall has also failed to identify a claim or defense
that he shares with the main action as a question of law or fact pursuant to Rule
24(b)(2). Lall’s Motion to intervene therefore must be DENIED as well as his
ancillary claims to (1) enforce the Florida state court’s dismissal on forum non
coveniens grounds, (2) strike or seal allegedly defamatory allegations against Lall, (3)
issue a protective order or declaratory finding precluding relitigation or the claims
underlying the state law claims.
Case 1:25-cv-22684-JB Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 3 of 4

4
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Lall’s Motion to Intervene [D.E. 15] is
DENIED. Lall may not intervene in this action and no relief is entered on his
contemporaneous motion for dismissal or preclude relitigation.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this 16th day of
March, 2026.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-22684-JB Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2026 Page 4 of 4