Case Information
‐ ‐ cv Peterson, et al. et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States of Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Foley Square, th day May, two thousand seventeen .
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah D. Peterson, Personal Representative Estate James C. Knipple (Dec.), et al. ,
Plaintiffs ‐ Appellees , Islamic Republic Iran, Bank Markazi a/k/a Central No. ‐ ‐ cv Bank Iran; Banca UBAE SpA; Citibank, N.A., Clearstream Banking, S.A.,
Defendants , *2 David J. Cook Collection Attorneys PLC, Movants ‐ Appellants .*
---------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR APPELLANTS: M AX F OLKENFLIK , Folkenflik & McGerity LLP, New York, NY. APPELLEES: J AMES P. B ONNER (Patrick L. Rocco, Susan M.
Davies, on the brief ), Stone Bonner Rocco LLP, New NY.
Appeal from an order the District Court the Southern District New York (Katherine B. Forrest, Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED order Court AFFIRMED.
David J. and Cook Collection Attorneys, PLC (together, “Cook”) appeal from (Forrest, J.) their pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24(a). seeks protect asserted contractual interest statutory charging lien proceeds from judgment in favor certain plaintiffs used represent collection counsel in related action. N.Y. Judiciary Law § 475. Without deciding whether alleged interests are valid sufficient * For purposes this order, we adopt shortened caption were granted leave use. Inc., Kurier, Russian Agency News Russian York. New in sitting courts federal liens governs law York Itar–Tass
support intervention of right, we agree with the that the motion was untimely. See Butler, Fitzgerald Potter Sequa Corp., F.3d 171, 176, (2d Cir. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
A district court’s reviewed for abuse of discretion. Floyd F.3d 2014) (per curiam). “Factors consider in determining timeliness include: (a) the length time the applicant knew or should have known its interest before making the motion; (b) prejudice existing resulting from the applicant’s delay; (c) prejudice applicant if motion denied; and (d) presence unusual circumstances militating for or against finding timeliness.” Id. at (quotation marks omitted). have no reason on this record doubt Court’s conclusion delayed his “for years,” since Cook should known threat his interest when was purportedly fired cause. That discharge operated attempted repudiation entitlement fees lien, it put notice no party remaining litigation represented interests. Butler, 182; Campagnola *4 Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 44 (1990) (“Where discharge for cause, attorney has no right to compensation or a retaining lien, notwithstanding a specific retainer agreement.”); Sacco & Fillas, LLP v. Broderick, 21 N.Y.S.3d 281, 283 (2d Dep’t 2015). should have known need by October 3, 2011, when was purportedly fired for cause, but he waited more than four years file his motion—a factor that weighs against finding was timely. See Butler, 250 F.3d 183.
also agree with permitting intervention now
would, among other things, prejudice existing further delay compensation victims terrorism who waited decades recover. In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig., 225 F.3d 191, (2d Cir. 2000); Pitney Bowes, Inc., 66, 72 (2d In contrast, denial would not unduly prejudice who attempting enforce lien “in separate lawsuit,” who has initiated arbitration proceeding recover attorney’s fees. Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek Shoot N.Y.S.2d 220, (1st Dep’t 2002); see Kaplan Reuss, N.Y.S.2d Dep’t 1985), aff’d, N.Y.2d (1986). has not identified any unusual circumstances weighing favor timeliness. The Court therefore did not abuse its discretion untimely. considered remaining arguments conclude they are without merit. For foregoing reasons, Court AFFIRMED. THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk