Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01298/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Boothe
Appellee
Michael Bumgardner
Appellant
David T. Hamamoto
Appellee
Judith A. Hannaway
Appellee
Wesley D. Minami
Appellee
Northstar Realty Finance Corp.
Appellee
Louis J. Paglia
Appellee
William Pennington
Appellant
Gregory Rush
Appellee
Charles W. Schoenherr
Appellee
John Wood
Appellant
Marjorie Wood
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1298

MICHAEL BUMGARDNER; WILLIAM PENNINGTON; JOHN WOOD; 

MARJORIE WOOD,

Intervenors - Appellants,

v.

JACK BOOTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP.; DAVID T. HAMAMOTO; JUDITH 

A. HANNAWAY; WESLEY D. MINAMI; LOUIS J. PAGLIA; GREGORY RUSH; 

CHARLES W. SCHOENHERR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-03742-JKB)

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 24, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick C. Smith, DEHAY & ELLISTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, 

Rhiana L. Swartz, Randy Moonan, SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, New 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1298 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

York, New York; Stephen Oddo, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego, California, for 

Appellants. Abby F. Rudzin, New York, New York, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Matthew W. 

Close, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Los Angeles, California; Andrew Gendron, 

Elizabeth C Rinehart, VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; James M. Wilson, Jr., 

FARUQI & FARUQI, New York, New York; Yelena Trepetin, BROWER PIVEN, 

Stevenson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1298 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Bumgardner, William Pennington, John Wood, and Marjorie Wood 

(collectively, “Intervenors”) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to 

intervene and for relief from judgment in a closed class action lawsuit. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene. 

Gould v. Alleco, Inc., 883 F.2d 281, 284 (4th Cir. 1989). Here, Intervenors moved for 

intervention of right, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), or, in the alternative, permissive 

intervention, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). For either type of intervention, the 

motion must be timely. Alt v. EPA, 758 F.3d 588, 591 (4th Cir. 2014). When determining 

the timeliness of a motion to intervene, “a trial court in this Circuit is obliged to assess 

three factors: first, how far the underlying suit has progressed; second, the prejudice any 

resulting delay might cause the other parties; and third, why the movant was tardy in filing 

its motion.” Id. We conclude that the district court assessed the relevant factors and did 

not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Intervenors’ motion to intervene.∗

 

Moreover, because it denied intervention, the court also properly denied Intervenors’ 

motion for relief from judgment. 

 ∗ In light of this conclusion, we decline to address the district court’s alternative 

finding that Intervenors’ interests were adequately represented by the existing parties. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1298 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1298 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 4 of 4