CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469

CVLR sued John Wynne and his companies in 2011 alleging a RICO scheme and related state claims; the district court originally dismissed CVLR’s RICO claim but this Court reversed and remanded.
In November 2013 (after remand), Karen Foster and Vicki Marsh moved to intervene as plaintiffs adopting CVLR’s amended allegations and asserting RICO (and Marsh an unjust enrichment) claims.
The district court denied intervention as time‑barred under the four‑year RICO limitations period and declined to equitably toll the statute, finding lack of diligence and no extraordinary circumstances.
Foster and Marsh timely appealed. While the appeal was pending, CVLR and Wynne settled and the district court dismissed the underlying action; Wynne moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.
The Fourth Circuit rejected the mootness argument because the motions to intervene were filed while the case was live and reversal could afford Appellants effective relief (e.g., permit independent suits), and affirmed the denial of equitable tolling/intervention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement/dismissal of the underlying action moots an appeal of denial of a motion to intervene	Because underlying case dismissed, appeal is moot; cannot intervene in a non‑existent case	Motion to intervene was filed while case was live; dismissal did not eliminate Appellants’ independent claims; reversal could provide effective relief	Dismissal does not automatically moot a preexisting appeal of denial to intervene; court retained jurisdiction and denied motion to dismiss appeal
Whether equitable tolling permits intervention after RICO limitations expired	Tolling applies because plaintiffs pursued other remedies, alleged complaints to authorities, and one appellant had mental impairment; district court should have held an evidentiary hearing	Plaintiffs failed to diligently pursue a RICO claim during the limitations period and offered no extraordinary, external circumstance preventing timely filing	Affirmed: equitable tolling not warranted—no diligence shown, no extraordinary external circumstance, and no abuse of district court’s discretion in denying a hearing

Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007) (case‑or‑controversy/mootness principles)
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1974) (federal courts cannot decide moot questions)
Purcell v. BankAtlantic Fin. Corp., 85 F.3d 1508 (11th Cir. 1996) (settlement of case does not necessarily moot an appeal of denial to intervene)
DBSI/TRI IV Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 465 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006) (intervention controversy can survive final judgment)
Alt. Research & Dev. Found. v. Veneman, 262 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (dismissal does not render appeal of denial to intervene moot)
FDIC v. Jennings, 816 F.2d 1488 (10th Cir. 1987) (settlement does not necessarily moot would‑be intervenors’ claims)
Chesapeake Bay Found. v. Am. Recovery Co., 769 F.2d 207 (4th Cir. 1985) (mootness where settlement provided all relief sought by would‑be intervenors)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling standard: diligence plus extraordinary circumstances)
Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling is an extraordinary, rarely applied remedy)