Candelario-Del-Moral v. UBS Financial Services Inc.
746 F.3d 30
1st Cir.2014Background
- Divorce-related litigation: Efron and Candelario are former spouses; Candelario sued UBS for negligently releasing funds attached in Efron’s UBS accounts after a Puerto Rico court order.
- UBS paid out funds; subsequent uncertainty left insufficient funds to satisfy Candelario’s claims; district court granted summary judgment to Candelario; this court remanded for further proceedings.
- UBS filed a contingent bankruptcy proof of claim (July 28, 2011) seeking indemnification from Efron under his 2002 account agreement for amounts paid to Candelario.
- After remand, UBS scheduled mediation and notified Efron (March 4, 2013) that it intended to seek indemnification if it settled; one week later Efron (pro se) moved to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
- The district court denied intervention as untimely (and for procedural defects), concluding Efron knew or should have known of his threatened interest at least by UBS’s 2011 proof of claim. Efron appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction to review denial of intervention | Candelario: denial was of permissive intervention/no interlocutory appealable right | Efron: he sought intervention as of right; denial of as-of-right intervention is immediately appealable | Court: Efron appealed denial of intervention as of right; appellate jurisdiction exists for such interlocutory appeals |
| Timeliness and entitlement to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) | Efron: he only learned his rights were threatened when UBS’s March 2013 letter; thus his 2013 motion was timely | Candelario: Efron knew of the suit and UBS’s indemnification claim earlier; delay (19+ months after UBS’s 2011 proof) made motion untimely and prejudicial | Court: affirmed denial for abuse of discretion — Efron should have known by 2011; diligent inaction bars intervention; prejudice to litigation outweighed Efron’s interest |
| Sanctions for filing appeal | Candelario: appeal was frivolous and warrants Rule 38 (and other) sanctions | Efron: appealed a colorable, though weak, timeliness argument | Court: declined sanctions — appeal was weak but not frivolous; brief delay in filing insufficient to warrant sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197 (1st Cir. 1987) (principle that law favors the vigilant, not those who sleep on rights)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 1998) (interlocutory appeals permitted for denial of intervention as of right)
- R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (four-part test for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2))
- Banco Popular de P.R. v. Greenblatt, 964 F.2d 1227 (1st Cir. 1992) (timeliness factors and inquiry described)
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Ribo, Inc., 868 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1989) (putative intervenor cannot rely on belief that suit is frivolous to excuse delay)
- Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 81 F.3d 257 (1st Cir. 1996) (definition and standard for frivolous appeals under Rule 38)