Court Opinion

ID: 9929242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 01:00:47.245931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:18.866989
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10111      Document: 00517053526          Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/01/2024

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                   No. 23-10111
                                                                          February 1, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
   Albert G. Hill, III, individually, and as a Beneficiary of the Margaret
   Hunt Trust Estate, derivatively on behalf of the Margaret Hunt Trust Estate,
   individually, As a beneficiary of the Haroldson Lafayette Hunt Jr. Trust Estate,
   and derivatively on Behalf of the Haroldson,

                                                               Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                        versus

   William Schilling, individually and in his capacity as a member of the
   Advisory Board MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE;
   Ivan Irwin, Jr.; Alinda H. Wikert; Lyda Hill; Heather V.
   Washburne; Elisa M. Summers; William Herbert Hunt, in
   his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Tom Hunt; Brett
   Ringle, Individually and in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board of
   the MHTE; John W. Creecy, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee
   of the HHTE; Margaret Keliher, Individually and in her capacity
   as Trustee of the MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE;
   Margaret Keliher, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of
   Albert G. Hill, Jr.,

                                                           Defendants—Appellees,

                                        versus

   Marco Antonio Montemayor, Esq.; Kenneth Robert
   Stewart, Jr., also known as Kenneth R. Stewart, Jr.,

                                                             Movants—Appellants.
Case: 23-10111         Document: 00517053526             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:07-CV-2020
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Kenneth Robert Stewart, Jr., and Marco Antonio Montemayor appeal
   from the denial of their motion to intervene. The district court determined
   that the appellants were not entitled to intervene as of right under Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because their request to intervene was not
   timely made. The district court likewise reasoned that the appellants did not
   show that they were entitled to permissive intervention.
          The appellants have not addressed any of the district court’s reasons
   for denying their motion to intervene. Therefore, the judgment of the district
   court is AFFIRMED. See Sommers v. Bank of America, NA, 835 F.3d 509,
   512-14 (5th Cir. 2016); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
   F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The motion to vacate the judgment of the
   district court and the motion to expedite are DENIED. The appellants are
   WARNED that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive
   pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include
   dismissal, monetary sanctions, and limits on their ability to file pleadings in
   this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v.
   Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2