914 F.3d 969
5th Cir.2019Background
- In 2005 Hurricane Katrina damaged New Orleans; residents alleged a Lafarge-owned barge broke loose and contributed to catastrophic flooding in the Lower 9th Ward.
- Richard T. Seymour represented several plaintiffs in the consolidated Barge Litigation but withdrew in August 2011 amid a fee dispute; the district court acknowledged he might have a fee claim when it allowed his withdrawal.
- St. Bernard Parish filed a separate action against Lafarge on August 23, 2011 (the same day Seymour withdrew); that action was not consolidated into the Barge Litigation.
- The Parish and Lafarge settled the St. Bernard case in 2017 and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal; Seymour learned of the settlement and served a notice of lien for fees shortly thereafter.
- Seymour moved to intervene in the dismissed federal case in September 2017 to pursue fees; the district court denied the motion as untimely and Seymour appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seymour may intervene of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) | Seymour: Motion was timely because he moved soon after learning settlement and nonpayment; interest remained and required protection. | Parish/Lafarge: Seymour knew of his interest when he withdrew in 2011; six-year delay is untimely. | Denied — intervention of right untimely (affirmed). |
| Proper timeliness test and application | Seymour: Timeliness should be measured from when movant knew representation ceased or when adverse action occurred. | Parish: Timeliness begins when movant knew he had an interest — here at withdrawal in 2011. | Court applied four-factor timeliness test and found delay (6 yrs) dispositive against Seymour. |
| Whether denial of permissive intervention was an abuse of discretion | Seymour: Permissive intervention appropriate given exceptional circumstances and disputed interpleader in NY. | Parish: Motion untimely; intervening after dismissal weighs against permissive intervention. | Denial of permissive intervention not an abuse — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Seymour lacked alternate remedies if denied intervention | Seymour: Other forums (NY interpleader) are inadequate; confidentiality of settlement limits separate suits. | Parish: Seymour could pursue state-law claims (e.g., quantum meruit) and obtain discovery under protective orders. | Court: Alternate avenues exist; prejudice to Seymour insufficient to overcome untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 835 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2016) (timeliness factors for intervention)
- Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (5th Cir. 1996) (intervention standards and timeliness principles)
- Ford v. City of Huntsville, 242 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2001) (timeliness factors and permissive intervention analysis)
- Keith v. St. George Packing Co., 806 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1986) (discharged attorneys may intervene to pursue fee claims)
- Gaines v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 434 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1970) (attorney’s interest not represented after discharge)
- Valley Ranch Dev. Co. v. FDIC, 960 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client interest alignment during representation)
- Cajun Elec. Power Coop. v. Gulf States Utils., Inc., 940 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1991) (intervention timing and standards)
- United States v. Transocean Air Lines, Inc., 356 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1966) (effect of dismissal on attorney charging liens)
- Gilbert v. Johnson, 601 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1979) (discharged attorney remedies and intervention analysis)