Houston General Ins v. Beaumont Townhomes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, because the appellant didn’t timely move to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, the court didn’t have to address the appellant’s request to set aside an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
• requiring a stronger showing by a movant when there has been a final judgment in a case
• affirming denial of motion to intervene filed more than two months after the district court entered its final order of judgment
• “[T]imeliness is a ‘cardinal consideration’ of whether to permit intervention . . . .” (quoting Brink v. DaLesio, 667 F.2d 420, 428 (4th Cir. 1981))
• “The determination of timeliness is committed to the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of that discretion.”
• “When Beaumont filed its motion to intervene more than 60 days after the entry of final judgment, there was no pending litigation in which Beaumont could intervene. Therefore, the motion was untimely .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).