Opinion ID: 171296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Motion to Intervene

Text: “Under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 24(a), an applicant may intervene as a matter of right if (1) the application is timely, (2) the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (3) the applicant’s -2- interest may be impaired or impeded, and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.” Elliott Indus. Ltd. v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 407 F.3d 1091, 1103 (10th Cir. 2005). 1 Addressing these factors, the district court determined on remand that (1) Mr. Wolfson’s motions for intervention were untimely; (2) he failed to substantiate his claim of sole ownership of the Purported Wolfson Assets; (3) in light of the findings already made concerning his ownership and his other avenues for redress that would not prejudice the parties to this action, his interest would not be impaired or impeded; and (4) although his rights were not adequately represented as a non-party, the other factors weighed against him and he was therefore not entitled to intervention as a matter of right. Because we conclude that the district court permissibly denied Mr. Wolfson’s motions as untimely, we need not consider its other bases for denying intervention. We review the district court’s order denying a motion to intervene as untimely for an abuse of discretion. Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir. 2001). “The timeliness of a motion to intervene is assessed in light of all the circumstances, including the length of time since the applicant 1 Rule 24(a)(2) provides in relevant part that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . 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.” -3- knew of his interest in the case, prejudice to the existing parties, prejudice to the applicant, and the existence of any unusual circumstances.” Id. at 1250 (quotation omitted). “The analysis is contextual; absolute measures of timeliness should be ignored.” Id. (quotation omitted). “The requirement of timeliness is not a tool of retribution to punish the tardy would-be intervenor, but rather a guard against prejudicing the original parties by the failure to apply sooner.” Id. (quotation omitted). A. Length of Time Since Mr. Wolfson Knew of His Interest In February 2004, the receiver requested that the receivership be expanded to include assets that Mr. Wolfson now claims as his own. The receiver provided evidence that David Wolfson and others had transferred a large amount of funds from defrauded investors into the Purported Wolfson Assets, making them a proper subject of the receivership. The receivership was expanded to include these assets on February 23, 2004. The district court entered a consent judgment against David Wolfson on December 21, 2004. That judgment noted that David Wolfson had already satisfied his obligation to disgorge wrongfully-obtained profits by transferring to the receiver his interest in various assets, including the Purported Wolfson Assets. Mr. Wolfson does not argue that his son failed to communicate with him the facts of the disgorgement. He only states that it was his impression that the Purported -4- Wolfson Assets would not be included because David Wolfson had notified the receiver that he only had a power of attorney over them. Mr. Wolfson did not file his first colorable motion to intervene until November 29, 2005, nearly a year later. Well prior to filing this motion to intervene, he was on notice of the receivership’s actions, evidenced by the fact that he began filing non-intervention pleadings in this action as far back as June 2005. Thus, Mr. Wolfson had notice of the receivership’s effect on his alleged interest in the Purported Wolfson Assets long before he moved to intervene. B. Prejudice to the Receiver In the meantime, the receiver relied upon the receivership orders in carrying out his duties of marshaling and liquidating assets for the benefit of defrauded investors and creditors. A number of these assets have already been sold, some prior to the filing of Mr. Wolfson’s first colorable motion to intervene. The receiver would be greatly prejudiced if forced to attempt to undo the steps he has taken to marshal and to liquidate these assets. C. Prejudice to Mr. Wolfson Mr. Wolfson has failed to substantiate his allegation that his own interests would be unduly prejudiced if he were denied permission to intervene. Although he claims that he merely granted his son power of attorney because he was going to prison, the evidence of record shows that David Wolfson assumed control and purported ownership of the operations, accounts, and assets of the Purported -5- Wolfson Assets. He then used them as a conduit for money stolen from investors. As the receiver has explained, the claims procedure and distribution process will permit Mr. Wolfson to make a claim and to dispute the receiver’s proposed distribution. 2 If he does file a claim, the district court should of course supply him with any notice and hearing in connection with that claim necessary to comport with due process. See SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1570-71 (11th Cir. 1992). D. Existence of Unusual Circumstances Mr. Wolfson points to no unusual circumstances that would excuse the untimely filing of his motions to intervene. His incarceration has not prevented him from filing numerous pleadings in this action. E. Conclusion The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Wolfson’s motions to intervene were untimely. We therefore affirm the denial of these motions.